Total Posts:309|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Understanding the Gun Debate

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:09:04 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

I absolutely agree that a gun would be nice for me to have to protect myself if sh!t went down, but if this is about making people safer then how on earth do you conclude that living in a society where everybody owns a gun accomplishes this?

Also, do you have any proposals for how we provide law enforcement with the tools to stop bad guys in a society where we all have guns, or do you just not feel that public law enforcement is a good system?

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

All of the above? So to be clear, your position includes the idea that more guns in circulation = less gun violence, and that the U.S. Government will impose tyranny on you if restrictions on gun ownership are passed? Please clarify.

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Ok, so given everything you just said, can you explain why you are against Obama's proposals to close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all since this would have zero impact on your constitutional rights, nor do anything to stop law abiding citizens from owning a gun?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:32:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.

interesting find, I like it, Buffalo is in the top 5 of that list, NYC is still viewed of how it use to be before, when it was one of the crime capitals of the U.S.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:45:04 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:32:06 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.

interesting find, I like it, Buffalo is in the top 5 of that list, NYC is still viewed of how it use to be before, when it was one of the crime capitals of the U.S.

I think that many people from rural areas have a very skewed impression of what it is like to live in a city. The real truth is, citys are incredibly safe! Crime happens in pockets, economically depressed neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may be as large as the towns these same people are more familiar with.

Point is. I never feel unsafe in Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:47:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
notice gun control isn't mentioned, but rather people who shouldn't have them.
What really cleaned up New York
http://www.salon.com...
http://www.nber.org...

best I can tell, they enforced laws

so if current laws aren't enforced, and yet when they are it works, why would anyone want more of what can not be proven to work? I think restricting right should be a last resort, we haven't even began to exhaust what already is, and clearly it can work wouldn't you say TBR?
kevin24018
Posts: 1,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 12:48:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:45:04 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:32:06 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.

interesting find, I like it, Buffalo is in the top 5 of that list, NYC is still viewed of how it use to be before, when it was one of the crime capitals of the U.S.

I think that many people from rural areas have a very skewed impression of what it is like to live in a city. The real truth is, citys are incredibly safe! Crime happens in pockets, economically depressed neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may be as large as the towns these same people are more familiar with.

Point is. I never feel unsafe in Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.

excellent point and you are right of course, the entertainment industry doesn't help the image either, for the cities and perceptions of pro and anti gun people.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 1:16:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:48:55 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:45:04 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:32:06 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.

interesting find, I like it, Buffalo is in the top 5 of that list, NYC is still viewed of how it use to be before, when it was one of the crime capitals of the U.S.

I think that many people from rural areas have a very skewed impression of what it is like to live in a city. The real truth is, citys are incredibly safe! Crime happens in pockets, economically depressed neighborhoods. These neighborhoods may be as large as the towns these same people are more familiar with.

Point is. I never feel unsafe in Chicago, NYC or San Francisco.

excellent point and you are right of course, the entertainment industry doesn't help the image either, for the cities and perceptions of pro and anti gun people.

I agree about the movie industry. If any of us lived in the world of the typical action movie, we would all cower in fear, but that is not reality. People go out to dinner, to work, walk their kids to the park. Live is just normal activities, and mostly boring to anyone but the individual.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 1:18:49 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:


The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

Which is it?


I actually come at this from C, but that is more of a "we should have guns," not that there are gun rights.

But I do support gun rights because of A, but even with A you can justify [moderate] gun control. I use C to evaluate the specific proposals.
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
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 1:58:02 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

http://www.takepart.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Oops. I found two sites that disagree with your solid wikipedia source.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:03:08 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 1:58:02 AM, AdamEsk wrote:
Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

http://www.takepart.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Oops. I found two sites that disagree with your solid wikipedia source.

Before you start acting like a jerk, look at your own source. They don't disagree with the lineup stats given in the wiki source.

Fool!
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:05:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:03:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 1:58:02 AM, AdamEsk wrote:
Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

http://www.takepart.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Oops. I found two sites that disagree with your solid wikipedia source.

Before you start acting like a jerk, look at your own source. They don't disagree with the lineup stats given in the wiki source.

Fool!

Crap that did sound mean...my apologies lol. Both of mine say Chicago is in the top ten. I've found stats supporting both sides, so I think we should be cautious in using them in arguments.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:19:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:05:46 AM, AdamEsk wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:03:08 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 1:58:02 AM, AdamEsk wrote:
Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

http://www.takepart.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Oops. I found two sites that disagree with your solid wikipedia source.

Before you start acting like a jerk, look at your own source. They don't disagree with the lineup stats given in the wiki source.

Fool!

Crap that did sound mean...my apologies lol. Both of mine say Chicago is in the top ten. I've found stats supporting both sides, so I think we should be cautious in using them in arguments.

Fair enough. It is just that gun-supporters almost always point to Chicago with no idea that they are not the top, not even close.

I have lived in Chicago, Denver, the central coast of California, and spend plenty of time in NYC. None of these cities are NEAR the top ten for violent crime.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:32:51 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

I'm not a gun-rights advocate, in any conventional or mainstream sense. But these are why people support gun rights: cultural, and practical reasons.

Many people (myself included) in this country grew up with guns. We went shooting and hunting with our families (I never went hunting, but almost everyone else in my family did or has). Especially boys who went hunting with their fathers; guns were the means to that connection, and they are not afraid of guns in the way that reactionary liberals in big cities are for a very simple reason: mass shootings do not happen in small towns or in the country, where everyone has guns. Mass shootings happen in the suburbs and in the cities. Guns, then, are for them what any hobby you did with your parents is to you. Maybe you went skiing with your parents, or whatever. That's the cultural reason.

The practical reason is this: outside the city, there are very real reasons to have guns. It takes a long time for the cops to get to your house if you live ten miles from the nearest police station. If your house is being broken into, and you and your family are asleep, even if the police were able to get there in ten minutes, (which wouldn't happen) that's the difference between life and death. And people who grew up with guns (not the troglodytes in the suburbs) usually have pretty good aim, and are very familiar with how to not only use guns, but use them safely and effectively, even in what you might call "high stress environments" (e.g. being charged by a bear or wild boar). That raises the other issue: if you have chickens, cattle, sheep, alpacas, or any other form of livestock, you probably also live in an area with wolves and bears. Wolves and bears present a real threat to people without guns, so the gun is necessary for the purpose of both protecting yourself, and your property from wild non-human creatures.

Especially, for example, if you're a rancher. A wolf that kills a cow or a chicken has to be killed, because he will keep killing livestock until he is killed. Wolves, particularly, risk inviting the entire pack to the farm for a feast on a farmer's animals. That's not only a huge safety risk (to the rancher's family) but also to his livelihood (the animals). Guns are the difference. And even people who don't, per se, ranch or farm, but who come from ranching or farming families... guns still have that same meaning to them, and for similar reasons even if they've never lassoed a cow before in their lives (I have... and it's hard as sh!t to do, FYI).
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:36:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:09:04 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Ok, so given everything you just said, can you explain why you are against Obama's proposals to close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all since this would have zero impact on your constitutional rights, nor do anything to stop law abiding citizens from owning a gun?

Because it's all for show. Increased traceability as far as manufacturing regulations, and harsh penalties for moving guns into the black market would be far more effective at curbing gun violence than any of these placebo policies concerning mental illness, background checks, and efforts at curbing mass shootings. The only danger that the mentally ill pose is to themselves, considering that well over half of gun-related deaths are suicide. Outside of scaring comfortably wealthy white people, mass shootings are completely irrelevant; they literally count for less than 1% of gun homicides. The biggest problem area area impoverished areas of large cities, which already have strict gun control laws, and the issue is with illegally obtained guns, many of which originate locally. So, to curb the vast majority of gun violence, we need to focus on being able to find a gun at a crime scene, identify it, find the last legal change of hands, and then throw the book at the guy who passed it along to less savory individuals illegally. Pretending that gun violence is about the mentally ill, or gun shows, or background checks is just completely disingenuous, and it is all aimed at terrifying well-to-do and middle class white people and then offering them a 'solution' in order to build political loyalty.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:41:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:21:05 AM, TBR wrote:
Want to know where I have felt the most unsafe? Houston Texas. Odd city.

I've been to Houston, and I've never felt unsafe there either. The only places I've been too that I felt unsafe in were Camden, NJ and Atlanta, Georgia. Between the two, Atlanta makes me more nervous than Camden.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:43:24 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:41:52 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:21:05 AM, TBR wrote:
Want to know where I have felt the most unsafe? Houston Texas. Odd city.

I've been to Houston, and I've never felt unsafe there either. The only places I've been too that I felt unsafe in were Camden, NJ and Atlanta, Georgia. Between the two, Atlanta makes me more nervous than Camden.

Camden is a terrifying place. I've only been to Atlanta airport, and that was horrific enough.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:44:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:43:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:41:52 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:21:05 AM, TBR wrote:
Want to know where I have felt the most unsafe? Houston Texas. Odd city.

I've been to Houston, and I've never felt unsafe there either. The only places I've been too that I felt unsafe in were Camden, NJ and Atlanta, Georgia. Between the two, Atlanta makes me more nervous than Camden.

Camden is a terrifying place. I've only been to Atlanta airport, and that was horrific enough.

Actually, I've got to add one more: Gary, Indiana.

But yeah, Atlanta is a disgusting city. Camden is, even in the daytime, highly unsettling.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 2:53:28 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Let me put it this way: here are some of the major US cities I've been too...

Miami, Key West, Tampa, Orlando, West Palm, St. Petersburg, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Mobile, Montgomery, Birmingham, Jackson, Shreveport, Charleston (SC), Myrtle Beach, Columbia, Greenville (SC), Charlotte (NC), Albany (GA), Savannah, Augusta, Atlanta, Knoxville, Nashville, Asheville, Memphis, Wilmington, Raleigh, Durham, Norfolk, Richmond, Charleston (WV), Louisville, Roanoke, Baltimore, DC, Columbus (Ohio), Cinci, Cleveland, Indy, Gary, Ft. Wayne, St. Louis, Kansas city, Topeka, Wichita, Detroit, Lansing, Pittsburg, Harrisburg, Philly, Trenton, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, NYC, Hartford, Providence, Albany, Buffalo, Boston, Concord, Portland (Maine), Des Moines, Houstin, Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, and the list goes on...

Gary, Camden, and Atlanta are the only places I've felt unsafe in.

I was uncomfortable in Indianapolis, New York and Detroit, but not unsafe.
Tsar of DDO
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:29:10 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

C/E Guns are used to save lives and prevent crime hundreds of thousands of times a year. Banning guns would only take them away from law abiding citizens and not criminals (criminals get drugs and other illegal things). So we would have armed criminals and unarmed defenseless good guys. Even without a gun one can commit a crime against a weaker victim. Guns allow people to protect them selves and others from dangerous violent criminals whether those criminals have or don't have guns. http://gunssavelives.net...
I support background checks just not an assault weapon ban.
AdamEsk
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 3:52:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:21:05 AM, TBR wrote:
Want to know where I have felt the most unsafe? Houston Texas. Odd city.

I was initiated into my business fraternity in Houston. I hear there are certain parts that are pretty dangerous. The place I was at wasn't too bad though.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:17:58 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.
I've been to the bad side of Chicago. Why aren't the gun laws reducing crime there?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:25:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 2:44:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:43:24 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:41:52 AM, YYW wrote:
At 1/17/2016 2:21:05 AM, TBR wrote:
Want to know where I have felt the most unsafe? Houston Texas. Odd city.

I've been to Houston, and I've never felt unsafe there either. The only places I've been too that I felt unsafe in were Camden, NJ and Atlanta, Georgia. Between the two, Atlanta makes me more nervous than Camden.

Camden is a terrifying place. I've only been to Atlanta airport, and that was horrific enough.

Actually, I've got to add one more: Gary, Indiana.

But yeah, Atlanta is a disgusting city. Camden is, even in the daytime, highly unsettling.

Gary Indiana was like where monsters lived when I was a kid. Drive through at night and you get the idea.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:29:36 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:17:58 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.
I've been to the bad side of Chicago. Why aren't the gun laws reducing crime there?

Why are gun laws not reducing crime? Well, one, there is no shortage of guns in Chicago. Two, the reason is the drug trade and poverty.

Now. What "bad side" are you speaking of? I ask because this is odd phrasing for a city like Chicago. Where exactly are you talking about?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:29:59 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 12:09:04 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

I absolutely agree that a gun would be nice for me to have to protect myself if sh!t went down, but if this is about making people safer then how on earth do you conclude that living in a society where everybody owns a gun accomplishes this?


First place, those who give up liberty for safety deserves neither liberty nor safety. Second, I lived in Alaska and most everyone there had guns and I felt perfectly safe.

Also, do you have any proposals for how we provide law enforcement with the tools to stop bad guys in a society where we all have guns, or do you just not feel that public law enforcement is a good system?

You tell me. Would you rob a bank where everybody there is armed? Criminals look for victims not fights. I think law enforcement is a great system for keeping the peace. But remember when seconds count, they're just minutes away.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

All of the above? So to be clear, your position includes the idea that more guns in circulation = less gun violence, and that the U.S. Government will impose tyranny on you if restrictions on gun ownership are passed? Please clarify.

Yes. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equal less crime. Like I said, I agree with all of the above.

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Ok, so given everything you just said, can you explain why you are against Obama's proposals to close the gun show loophole and mandate background checks for all since this would have zero impact on your constitutional rights, nor do anything to stop law abiding citizens from owning a gun?

It actually does infringe on my rights. The right to be innocent until proven guilty. A background check assumes you are a criminal until you pass it. Plus they have little effect on crime. Most criminals get there guns from the black market, not the loophole. In fact more criminals got guns from gun and pawn shops than a gun show. As far as background checks, most criminals either pass the background because they haven't committed a crime yet or they get it by stealing or straw purchase.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:32:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:29:36 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 4:17:58 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.
I've been to the bad side of Chicago. Why aren't the gun laws reducing crime there?

Why are gun laws not reducing crime? Well, one, there is no shortage of guns in Chicago. Two, the reason is the drug trade and poverty.

Isn't the point of gun laws is to reduce guns in the hands of criminals?

Now. What "bad side" are you speaking of? I ask because this is odd phrasing for a city like Chicago. Where exactly are you talking about?

It's the south side, the ghetto.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 4:38:06 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 4:32:00 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 4:29:36 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/17/2016 4:17:58 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/17/2016 12:02:32 AM, TBR wrote:
At 1/16/2016 11:53:59 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/16/2016 6:37:46 PM, Double_R wrote:
If you are a Gun rights advocate and subscribe to the typical gun rights arguments coming from the political right then I have just one question for you... Why do you advocate for gun rights?

It's the best form of defense and people are trying to take away that form.

Take a mass shooting for example (since this is the only thing that will get the country talking about this issue). Every time one happens the reactions will be predictable: The left will use this as another example of why we need further gun laws, the right will shrug, demonize the left for politicizing another tragedy, then fend off the lefties arguments to ensure no further restrictions on gun rights are passed. At least that is what I see.

The intent and passion on the left seems clear... to minimize gun violence. I think even most of the political right can see that. What I don't understand is where the political right is coming from in their stance against gun laws. Below are some possible answers:

A) To protect the constitution
B) To ensure your hunting privileges
C) To minimize gun violence
D) To fend off the inevitable tyranny of the US government!
E) Other

All of the above. Gun control don't work when you want to reduce crime. Take Chicago for instance.

Which is it?

Please do not derail this thread with the various pro-gun arguments and why you think they make sense. This is about what motivates you. Take abortion for example, we can easily understand what motivates each side (left: a woman's right to choose what they do with their own body, right: the life of the unborn child). So disagree with the anti-gun arguments all you want, at least most of us can easily understand what they are trying to accomplish. Can the same be said about you?

Yes. My main pet peeve is that they are tramping on my constitutional rights and that gun control only works in disarming the law abiding citizens. It's not the path to take.

Just so you know... Chicago is not even in the top ten for crime in cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org...(2014)

This notion of Chicago, and NYC and LA are just so wrong.
I've been to the bad side of Chicago. Why aren't the gun laws reducing crime there?

Why are gun laws not reducing crime? Well, one, there is no shortage of guns in Chicago. Two, the reason is the drug trade and poverty.

Isn't the point of gun laws is to reduce guns in the hands of criminals?

Yup. That is the intent. It does little for one city in a country awash in cheap guns.


Now. What "bad side" are you speaking of? I ask because this is odd phrasing for a city like Chicago. Where exactly are you talking about?

It's the south side, the ghetto.
So, perhaps, like Stony island? OK. South side includes working class neighborhoods, like Midway, Chrysler Village etc, and.. well a ton of areas from just south of the loop to Calumet city. We are talking a lot of space, so... I am saying that is ambiguous.