Walmart shooting
- Thread starter BlackLivesMatter
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 263960
Guest
Debate Forum Basic Rules and Guidelines:
1 - Personal insults of other members will not be tolerated.
If you wish for other people to respect your points of view, then you must also respect theirs. Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals. If you cannot present your position on an issue without resorting to insults, then there's a good chance that your position is not very strong to begin with.
1 - Personal insults of other members will not be tolerated.
If you wish for other people to respect your points of view, then you must also respect theirs. Remember, we debate issues here, not individuals. If you cannot present your position on an issue without resorting to insults, then there's a good chance that your position is not very strong to begin with.
little cindy lou who
Gold Member
aah ya ... but taaaaa ... reading polite topical debate can be somewhat .. err .. how shall i say ... DULL ?
if the insults have sarcastic humorous content then that should liven up a dull debate and make it more entertaining
as in politics for example .... of course if the subject matter is sobering and the debaters have insightful intellectual content
no need to dumb it down with profane personal insults ..... unless they are boring the life out of everyone .
then again never was a jerry springer fan .. and i have never had a meal at the waffle house or been to a pro wrestling match
ok ... im rambling ... what was the point again ?
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Its easy to be done with a topic when you have nothing to add.
But they do put breathalyzers in the cars of people with a drunk driving history.Bread said:
A few senators blame it on mental illness but it's not true. That's their deflection to steer away from stricter gun laws.Bread said:
I wouldn't be flagged in a gun purchase because I've no history of threats or gun violence, but if I did have a history of it, I'd deserve to be affected personally.Bread said:
There would be no red flags on someone with no history of gun violence or threats of gun violence. So how would they be considered guilty?SerenityMoon said:
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
@Boba Fett and @swansong since you're such an advocate for stricter gun laws, lets hear what you have in mind, and watch how fast it fails because of constitutionality.
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
One solution might be since the mass shootings that have taken place have all involved assault weapons, ban assault weapons, or does that make too much sense?
Yes on people who break laws not on people who dont. Do you not understand the example?
People who drive drunk and have a drunk driving history are breaking the law, thats why theyre punished for it. They are a high risk group.
People who dont drive drunk do not have breathelyzers in their vehicle because they abide by laws. They are not a high risk group.
People who break laws felonies, DA or are at an otherwise high risk group for gun safety are not allowed to own guns.
People who dont break laws and have a constitutional right to bear arms are not in a high risk group. So why should they be punished with stricter gun laws.
.
so explain to the people of chat avenue how having stricter gun laws is going to stop mentality ill people from harming others.
This is already true. Such laws already exist.
Do you even know what you are arguing? There is no fundamental difference between a handgun and an "AR" .
At its core theyre both weapons that fire with a single pull of the trigger. Handguns are just as deadly if not deadlier than ARs because of the fact that they can be so easily be concealed. So why isnt anyone trying to ban handguns, yet?
Can you explain to me (WITHOUT GOOGLING), Why do you personally think ARs should be banned or limited?
That is essentially what shes trying to say. Why should someone that has no red flags and is a law abiding citizen, be punished for crimes that .0000001% of the population commit that results in 1% of homicides nationally?
In the name of safety? The data is shown on page 3 of this thread and these "weapons of war-AR's are" the lowest ranking weapon for homicides. Blunt object(weapons) account for more deaths nationallity than "ARs". Should we ban all blunt objects in peoples homes?
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
Researchers estimate that if the U.S.A. had an assault weapon ban, we would see 70% fewer mass shooting deaths.
I estimate that if every person bought my new fannie pack 90% of americans would be safer
See how easy it is to make a claim?
Post research data with your claims.
Also,
If we banned 100% of mass shooters wed be 100% safer
Last edited:
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
You do realize that assault weapons are already ban in the US? H.R.1808 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Assault Weapons Ban
It's what I've already said. Other countries had mass shootings, they made new restrictive gun laws and the amount of mass shootings in all those countries declined. The mentally ill people are still there so logic would suggest it was the new restrictions that lowered the mass the murder.SerenityMoon said:
The only thing I googled was the stats on how many mentally ill people were committing mass shootings and the answer is a very small proportion of the shooters in the 300 mass shootings this year.Bread said:
Everything I said is my personal opinion. I was just confirming the stats to back up my opinion.
BlackLivesMatter
Gold Member
All this constitutional talk about the 2nd amendment. If you read the constitution it mentions muskets not automatic weapons. Why would you need an AK for personal protection? I guess if you are a bad shot or simply want to shoot a school up The next thing trolls like Serenity Now will say that it should be legal to shoot schools up.
We are not other countries. Out of all the countries in the world, only 3 give its citizens a constitutional right to bear firearms.
Thats right 3.
There is 300 mass shootings a year and they account for 600 deaths yearly.
Mass shootings account for less than than 0.5% of all gun related deaths every year.
How is banning ARs going to curve gun violence for the other 50,000 gun deaths of which most dont even involve ARs?
You ban ARs for mass shootings and the only thing that is going to happen is the stats are going to raise mass shootings by handguns and shotguns. How you ask? Because ARs will be banned and the mentally ill people that want to harm others will find other means to do so. Its not going to stop deaths only change the statistics for those deaths. The weapon choice isnt the problem.
Guns arent the problem nor is banning "ARs" the solution. Mentally ill people are the problem.
This just goes to show how IGNORANT and CLULESS some people are about guns. Yet they want to sit here and argue about taking their own constitutional rights away.
Although its not ILLEGAL to own an automatic weapon in the USA
In order to own automatic weapons:
You basically have to buy WWII era automatic guns that are over 35 years old (ANTIQUES) and over most peoples budgets.
Be a firearms DEALER/possess an FFL
Apply and pass a thorough background check that takes on average of about 1 year to process.
Pay exorbitant amounts of money to own one.
AR15s(MASS SHOOTER PEW PEWS) ARE NOT AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
The icing on the cake..
Can someone explain to me how out of the TOP 25 DEADLIEST MASS SHOOTINGS IN US HISTORY(1982-2022)
Virginia tech massacre ranked 3rd on that list and the gunman managed to kill 32 people with just 2 handguns?
Out of the TOP 25 DEADLIEST MASS SHOOTINGS IN US HISTORY(1982-2022)
11 of the 25 shootings don't even involve AR15s
Yet you guys want to sit here and preach that "banning ARs is going to curve mass shootings"?
Hell I didnt even include the most infamous mass shooting in US history (Columbine) in that count because of its use of a tec-9(not an AR)
You guys have officially been owned by Bread™ and there is no coming back from these factchecks.
this thread can be closed @Apollo
this thread can be closed @Apollo
Last edited:
US-Relaxed Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in the US last year- 37,040.
UK-Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in the UK last year- 162.
Australia- Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in Australia last year-241.
Japan- Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in Japan last year- 101.
I mean, one of those numbers doesn't look like the others. I could continue to make this list and the numbers would always look the exact same but I feel like I can drop the mic right here.
You have officially been owned by Frombo, there is no coming back from these fact checks.
This thread can be closed @Apollo
UK-Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in the UK last year- 162.
Australia- Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in Australia last year-241.
Japan- Strict Gun Laws: Deaths by Gun in Japan last year- 101.
I mean, one of those numbers doesn't look like the others. I could continue to make this list and the numbers would always look the exact same but I feel like I can drop the mic right here.
You have officially been owned by Frombo, there is no coming back from these fact checks.
This thread can be closed @Apollo
Last edited:
Ignorant people. Like i said.
First post addresses MASS SHOOTINGS of which account for 0.5% of all gun related deaths.
So why focus on 0.5% of the problem?
The other 95.5% of shootings are GUN VIOLENCE not GANG VIOLENCE. The information is there if you read it.
I practically highlighted for you in a big red box
[HOMICIDE/MURDER/UNINTENTIONAL/DEFENSIVE GUN USE/SUICIDE]
Gang violence has NOTHING to do with this thread but since you want to keep sniffing my arse just to ARGUE, here:
"During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimated an average of more than 15,500 homicides annually across the United States, indicating that gang-related homicides were approximately 13% total homicides annually"
3 of those countries are not like the other.
The United States of America was founded up 3 documents collectively known as The Charters of Freedom.
These 3 documents include: The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The United States Constitution 2nd amendment(gee it must be really important since its the 2nd thing on the list) reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Go learn your history.
Which is also a nice of way of saying HALF.
Which is also a nice way of saying "i cant argue about banning ARs when a guy with 2 handguns did more harm than 90% of the top 25 mass shootings in the USAs History"
@Apollo its basically trolls being argumentative at this point and failing to actually debate, so this thread can be closed.
you're right, three of those countries aren't like the other. the three that aren't have strict gun laws and as a result have a drastic difference in gun related deaths.
when that constitution you cling to was signed, guns that kill entire rooms of people in a matter of seconds didn't exist.
an argument based around the fact that something is lawful (IE: your constitution argument) is a logical fallacy called "an appeal to law". and this is a logical fallacy because just because something lawful, or lawfully protected under a countries constitution, doesn't automatically mean that it's the right thing. laws change all the time when they no longer serve the people.
Australia is a good example. They had relaxed gun laws for years, and after a mass shooting in 1996, they had massive changes to their gun laws put into place. And by the year 2000, the amount of gun related deaths went down by 47% when compared to 1992. Today that number of gun related deaths compared to 1992 are down 61.25%. This trend will continue.
Just to put that into perspective: 61.25% of 37,040 is 22,687. Thats 22,687 people who might not have died in the last year if the USA was following a similar trend as Australia, just so that people like you can hold up your precious constitution into a limelight painted in blood. I know that things wouldn't be the exact same and you can't use these figures as exact expectations, but the number of lives that wouldn't have ended would still be much smaller than what it was.
"Laws don't stop people from killing people, but guns do"- @Bread.
your argument that laws that don't stop people from killing people is 100% true. but gun reform laws stop people from killing people with guns. My source? Statistics on any country that uses heavy gun reform laws. I'd rather have 1000 maniacs armed with knives on the loose than 100 armed with AR15s.
when that constitution you cling to was signed, guns that kill entire rooms of people in a matter of seconds didn't exist.
an argument based around the fact that something is lawful (IE: your constitution argument) is a logical fallacy called "an appeal to law". and this is a logical fallacy because just because something lawful, or lawfully protected under a countries constitution, doesn't automatically mean that it's the right thing. laws change all the time when they no longer serve the people.
Australia is a good example. They had relaxed gun laws for years, and after a mass shooting in 1996, they had massive changes to their gun laws put into place. And by the year 2000, the amount of gun related deaths went down by 47% when compared to 1992. Today that number of gun related deaths compared to 1992 are down 61.25%. This trend will continue.
Just to put that into perspective: 61.25% of 37,040 is 22,687. Thats 22,687 people who might not have died in the last year if the USA was following a similar trend as Australia, just so that people like you can hold up your precious constitution into a limelight painted in blood. I know that things wouldn't be the exact same and you can't use these figures as exact expectations, but the number of lives that wouldn't have ended would still be much smaller than what it was.
"Laws don't stop people from killing people, but guns do"- @Bread.
your argument that laws that don't stop people from killing people is 100% true. but gun reform laws stop people from killing people with guns. My source? Statistics on any country that uses heavy gun reform laws. I'd rather have 1000 maniacs armed with knives on the loose than 100 armed with AR15s.
Last edited:
- Status