Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 208
  1. #161
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, if you are dropping your argument that 2A is irrelevant, then you certainly have no need to discuss whether a scenario may occur in the future where 2As rights are relevant. And in that case I would have no need to argue that the scenario is possible, so I would retract it (by not repeating it).

    So assuming you do want me to retract it and you want to move on to something else, you just need to retract that position that 2A is irrelevant.

    And really, you've made LOTS of arguments that don't require 2A being irrelevant to be valid (along the lines of even if there might be a scenario where 2A is relevant, the numbers of deaths that occur by continuing to have 2A outweigh it).

    So it's up to you if it's retracted and if we move on.
    No. If you won’t remove it out of play then it is still in play.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  2. #162
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. If you won’t remove it out of play then it is still in play.
    right. So it's not retracted.

    Which is not to say that you can't move the debate to an issue where whether it's supported or not is not relevant and take it out of play that way.

    Again, if you have arguments that don't rely on 2A being irrelevant, then whether my scenario is valid or not doesn't matter. So it's not retracted but that doesn't matter.

  3. #163
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    right. So it's not retracted.

    Which is not to say that you can't move the debate to an issue where whether it's supported or not is not relevant and take it out of play that way.

    Again, if you have arguments that don't rely on 2A being irrelevant, then whether my scenario is valid or not doesn't matter. So it's not retracted but that doesn't matter.
    Of course it matters. For several reasons:

    1. Your scenarios are no different from what is typically used to support 2A.
    2. None of them are plausible, which you’re claiming.
    3. Your scenarios don’t qualify to be detailed enough to examine for general understanding, never mind whether they’re possible or plausible or probable.
    4. If you don’t supply further information as to what your scenario is then it is impossible to move forward.
    5. You refuse to supply information even when asked directly for fear of having to invent more stuff, so you really don’t have those details to begin with.

    I have to conclude that if you don’t have a scenario that you can readily discuss and examine for plausibility and possibility then they have to be taken out of play.

    I certainly can’t force you to accept this and I won’t ask for moderator support. This is between me and you; debater to debater; man to woman. But the next move has to be either you provide some plausibility around your tyrant or you drop the scenario and we move onto the next scenario.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  4. #164
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course it matters. For several reasons:

    1. Your scenarios are no different from what is typically used to support 2A.
    2. None of them are plausible, which you’re claiming.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not plausible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    3. Your scenarios don’t qualify to be detailed enough to examine for general understanding
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not detailed enough to examine for general understanding.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    4. If you don’t supply further information as to what your scenario is then it is impossible to move forward.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it's impossible to move forward if I don't supply further information. To me it just sounds like a choice on your part to not move forward unless I provide more information.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    5. You refuse to supply information even when asked directly for fear of having to invent more stuff, so you really don’t have those details to begin with.
    And I won't even bothering challenging you on that one since you obviously cannot support that. You would have to read my mind to know my motivation and I know that if you could read my mind, you would find out that you are incorrect on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have to conclude that if you don’t have a scenario that you can readily discuss and examine for plausibility and possibility then they have to be taken out of play.
    Again, with your concluding...

    It's completely your choice on whether you CHOOSE to challenge my argument. If you choose not to, for whatever reason you care to forward, then my argument remains unchallenged and as long as I forward it, it's still in play.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I certainly can’t force you to accept this and I won’t ask for moderator support. This is between me and you; debater to debater; man to woman. But the next move has to be either you provide some plausibility around your tyrant or you drop the scenario and we move onto the next scenario.
    There's a third option.

    You drop your argument that 2A is irrelevant and move on to the next scenario. And if you do that, then my arguments become irrelevant and I will likely have no need to forward them further.

    So we have three options
    1. You drop your 2A argument (which of course is totally up to you)
    2. I drop my 2A argument (which of course is totally up to me)
    3. Neither of us drop our arguments and this continues.

    I'll tell you right now that option 2 is not going to happen so it's either 1 or 3. So it's your choice. 1 or 3. Either is fine with me.

    And feel free to ask for moderator support if you want.

    Also, I'm male, not female.

  5. #165
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not plausible.
    Actually, that is a claim you made, so it’s your burden to support it.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that your scenario is not plausible.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my scenario is not detailed enough to examine for general understanding.
    I already have done - I don’t understand how what your tyrant actually did to be accused of being a tyrant. As there are an infinite number of scenarios of tyrant, of which I gave one impossible scenario, I don’t know if scenario is one of those or some, as yet unknown, one.


    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that it's impossible to move forward if I don't supply further information. To me it just sounds like a choice on your part to not move forward unless I provide more information.
    Well, really, the burden is on you since, you made the last claim that your scenario is plausible.

    So I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that your tyrant is possible.

    Again, with your concluding...

    It's completely your choice on whether you CHOOSE to challenge my argument. If you choose not to, for whatever reason you care to forward, then my argument remains unchallenged and as long as I forward it, it's still in play.
    Well, you were the last to claim that your scenario is plausible so you need to demonstrate that per the challenge above. Or retract it. Either way.

    There's a third option.

    You drop your argument that 2A is irrelevant and move on to the next scenario. And if you do that, then my arguments become irrelevant and I will likely have no need to forward them further.

    So we have three options
    1. You drop your 2A argument (which of course is totally up to you)
    2. I drop my 2A argument (which of course is totally up to me)
    3. Neither of us drop our arguments and this continues.

    I'll tell you right now that option 2 is not going to happen so it's either 1 or 3. So it's your choice. 1 or 3. Either is fine with me.
    I choose 3.

    And feel free to ask for moderator support if you want.
    There’s no point - you have actively refused to provide information asked for. I don’t see how a mod can compel you to do so since they will likely have to kick in a lot as you all the time.

    You should only do so because you feel you want to move the debate forward in a fair manner where we can see what each other has. Instead, you’ve spent almost two weeks avoiding that. So I guess we’re at an impasse.

    Also, I'm male, not female.
    Wut?
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 17th, 2018 at 03:34 AM.

  6. #166
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Actually, that is a claim you made, so it’s your burden to support it.
    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that your scenario is not plausible.
    Actually, I never made a claim about its plausibility either way. I argued, and supported, that it's possible.

    But anyway, you have been challenged to support that it's not plausible.

    Per the rules, you now cannot claim that it's not plausible without supporting that it's not plausible.

    When you see me claim that it's plausible (like I actually say "it's plausible") THEN you can challenge me on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I already have done - I don’t understand how what your tyrant actually did to be accused of being a tyrant.
    But then just saying that you don't understand is not the basis for support. There needs to be some objective, or agreed-upon, standard for when enough detail has been given before one can make a supported case that the current amount of detail is insufficient.

    So okay, you THINK that not enough detail has been given. Your opinion is noted.

    If you are going to claim that insufficient detail has been given, you will need to support that with something other than your opinion.

    And if you refuse to address the plausibility/possibility of my scenario on the basis that you think that I've not given you enough to work with, then you have no basis to claim that it's implausible or impossible. and should move on from trying to make a case that you don't think you are capable of making.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I choose 3.
    Fine. So it's your CHOICE to continue with this.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There’s no point - you have actively refused to provide information asked for. I don’t see how a mod can compel you to do so since they will likely have to kick in a lot as you all the time.
    If per the rules I am required to provide information, then the moderators will rule that I must. But of course they won't rule that because I have no obligation to provide such information. It's nothing more than a personal request from you which I am declining. You asked. I said no. So go from there instead of wasting your time trying to get me to do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You should only do so because you feel you want to move the debate forward in a fair manner where we can see what each other has.
    If I thought it would actually move the debate forward, I would give you the information.

    Again, IF the issue is that there are a FINITE (let me emphasize that word again FINITE) number of details that you need in order the move forward, I would probably give them. But since you refuse to tell me what FINITE details you need, I have to assume that giving any details will just lead to request for more details and more after that and so on. And therefore giving you any details will not move the debate forward.

    And you can easily show me that you need a FINITE number of details by asking me for those specific details and agreeing that you won't need any more.

    To be clear, I have no obligation to provide you with further details but am willing to once you tell me SPECIFICALLY THE FINITE DETAILS THAT YOU NEED. So it's up to you if we move forward.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Instead, you’ve spent almost two weeks avoiding that. So I guess we’re at an impasse.
    You've been avoiding asking for the finite and specific details that you need, yes.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Wut?
    You've referred to me a "lady" and "woman". I'm a man. Just clearing that up.
    Last edited by mican333; May 17th, 2018 at 08:15 AM.

  7. #167
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Here's an example of why good people should be allowed to carry guns. This guy is leaving work and gets attacked by a masked man with a wooden post and scissors. He might well be dead, except that he had a handgun and was able to defend himself.

    Logic should tell you that if he hadn't had a gun, the attacker would have been successful in the attack (and subsequent robbery) and would have repeated the behavior against many future victims. So the fact that the victim had a gun saved not only himself, but probably a lot of other people.

    Now multiply that by uncountable similar situations across the country that happen every year, and the greater number of uncountable would-be attackers who don't take the risk of breaking into a home or robbing a business because someone inside might have a gun.

    An employee closing up shop at a Little Caesars restaurant in Florida on Saturday night shot and killed a man in a clown mask after he was attacked with a wooden post, according to authorities.

    Police in Holly Hill, Florida, said the employee exited the back door of the pizza place just before midnight when a man in a grotesque clown mask jumped him with a wooden post. According to the police report, the post broke over the man's back, upon which the attacker tried to stab the employee with a pair of scissors.

    The victim responded by pulling out his concealed firearm and firing "four or five shots" at the attacker, according to the police report. When authorities responded, the attacker was found lying in the parking lot with the mask still on and scissors by his body, police said. https://abcnews.go.com/US/caesars-em...ry?id=55483144
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #168
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    OK and I have other examples, e.g. Vegas, where there were hundreds of people, some of whom probably had a gun, but weren’t able to do anything. I doubt that there are enough examples of “a good guy with a gun” to outweigh the number of people that have been killed. Those situations are so rare that they nearly always make it to the news.

    Anyway, with the NRA hopefully on its last legs, perhaps its time to change the constitution to be more sensible.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  10. #169
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Those situations are so rare that they nearly always make it to the news.
    An unsupported claim. I could just as easily and more reasonably say that there would be far more home invasion robberies and murders if bad people didn't have to worry about good people having guns in their homes for self defense.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  11. #170
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    An unsupported claim. I could just as easily and more reasonably say that there would be far more home invasion robberies and murders if bad people didn't have to worry about good people having guns in their homes for self defense.
    It’s not unsupported because gun supporters ALWAYS point out those rare occurrences when they make the news! Such as yourself for instance.

  12. #171
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s not unsupported because gun supporters ALWAYS point out those rare occurrences when they make the news! Such as yourself for instance.
    The problem with your argument is that you have no idea what proportion of such occurrences do make the news. It may by 99.9% or .001% or anywhere in between.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #172
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The problem with your argument is that you have no idea what proportion of such occurrences do make the news. It may by 99.9% or .001% or anywhere in between.
    Obviously, I can’t prove it but I would think that ALL mass shootings are being reported widely. I see no reason why a newspaper would choose not to make money.

  14. #173
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Obviously, I can’t prove it but I would think that ALL mass shootings are being reported widely. I see no reason why a newspaper would choose not to make money.
    It was one guy defending against an assailant.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #174
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It was one guy defending against an assailant.
    There’s tons of articles about people defending themselves

  16. #175
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,572
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There’s tons of articles about people defending themselves
    Right, and no evidence that those articles represent a significant percentage of the people who are actually forced to do so. 'fess up, you misunderstood and thought the article was about a mass shooting, and it wasn't.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #176
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Second what MT is saying. One of the major issues is that we have people who legitimately and genuinely want to change something, but they really haven't done any of the research needed to understand the issue (and not a small portion of them refuse to do it). It is a lot like people who are concerned about the trade deficit, but really have no idea what it is.
    Well, I will third it.

    When I was 12, my dad bought me a ruger 10/22 rifle. In Wa St this is now considered an "assault weapon".

    Mass murder will continue until no one wants to mass murder.

    IOW, would we "feel better" if a person ran their car into the natural gas meter blowing up a school rather than shooting kids with an assault rifle? Dead is dead. Less suffering before one dies may be desirable, but changes the outcome not.

    Set an explosive by the power meter at any stadium or shopping mall, block an exit or two just prior to the explosion, let people kill themselves trying to get away.
    Pick any large gathering of people and I will tell you a way for mass murder/killing. The weapon of choice matters little to the motivation and ingenuity of the perpetrator.
    Ban A gun. Ban them all. Even if there were no guns:

    THERE WILL STILL BE MASS MURDER!

  18. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  19. #177
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,365
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    THERE WILL STILL BE MASS MURDER!
    Laws against murder don't prevent all murder so should we remove laws against murder?

    Can you see how your argument is not especially effective? Those who want to reduce ownership of guns are not aiming to stop all murder, they are aiming to make such acts more difficult and thus reduce their numbers.

    It always comes down to what you gain and what you lose. Gain safety, loose guns. Gain safety, loose cars. Gain safety, loose drugs.

    Now, you are correct that there are other means to resuce violence other than just reducing gun ownership, but it is a way to do that.

    I'm living in Japan, and honestly, the lack of guns, compared to the US is lovely. People feel incredibly safe here, from each other, from the police (who are not usually armed), from any random act of violence they can't control. There are murders, but they are very rare, and running away is often pretty effective as a means of self defense when faced by agression.

    No guns isn't the cause, but the more dangerous weapons you have in circulation, the more fear and motivation there is to add more to protect yourself. The less you have around the less anyone feels the need to have them and the less overall damage can be done.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #178
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Laws against murder don't prevent all murder so should we remove laws against murder?

    Can you see how your argument is not especially effective? Those who want to reduce ownership of guns are not aiming to stop all murder, they are aiming to make such acts more difficult and thus reduce their numbers.

    It always comes down to what you gain and what you lose. Gain safety, loose guns. Gain safety, loose cars. Gain safety, loose drugs.

    Now, you are correct that there are other means to resuce violence other than just reducing gun ownership, but it is a way to do that.

    I'm living in Japan, and honestly, the lack of guns, compared to the US is lovely. People feel incredibly safe here, from each other, from the police (who are not usually armed), from any random act of violence they can't control. There are murders, but they are very rare, and running away is often pretty effective as a means of self defense when faced by agression.

    No guns isn't the cause, but the more dangerous weapons you have in circulation, the more fear and motivation there is to add more to protect yourself. The less you have around the less anyone feels the need to have them and the less overall damage can be done.
    Murder is not a constitutional right; owning a gun is a constitutional right. So to answer your question: no, we should not remove laws against murder.

    According to the CDC, death by firearms (including suicides and accidental) hit a record high in 2017 at 39,773.

    https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/da...96BDB75371794A

    Looks like those gun-control laws are really helping... I can't wait to see what numbers come up for 2018.

    In my opinion, if someone wants to kill lots of people, a ban on specific types of guns is not going to deter nor stop that someone from doing it.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  21. #179
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,012
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    I am curious to know where people on this forum stand on the current controversy of guns. As far as I can see, there is a large group of people who are trying to ban the ownership of a specific gun: The AR-15.

    I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings. They will still occur because the people who are intent on killing others will find other ways to do so. Making laws for people who don't follow laws is idiotic. It makes no sense at all. I believe if you ban the AR-15, these disturbed individuals will find other methods to commit mass murder because they are disturbed and they wish to take life (for whatever the reason). I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I do worry about what will be banned after the AR-15. What is to stop the rest of the firearms from being banned for "safety reasons"? After that, how many other constitutional rights will we revoke?

    I mention this slippery slope argument not to pick a fight with anyone but because I am genuinely worried about it. How does everyone feel about this?
    I am happy to see you back, it has been a while

    Funny that "AR-15" is just named after the manufacturer of that rifle. It has no inherent meaning of "assault rifle" as is somewhat commonly thought. The media does lean toward a "if the AR-15 were just specifically outlawed, no more mass shootings".

    Not as funny, here in WA ST "we" just decided the Ruger 10/22 rifle my dad gave me when I was 12 is now an "assault rifle".

    ---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm living in Japan, and honestly, the lack of guns, compared to the US is lovely. People feel incredibly safe here, from each other, from the police (who are not usually armed), from any random act of violence they can't control. There are murders, but they are very rare, and running away is often pretty effective as a means of self defense when faced by agression.
    Not particularly appropriate example. In Japan after the last major quake/tidal wave was handled with civility. Imagine when that happens to CA in the US. The carnage will not be because of guns, but more of the difference in morality.

  22. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  23. #180
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,324
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    I think most Americans can and do agree to a certain level of gun control. We'd like to see gun ownership require some sort of registration. We would like to see guns that can be traced back to their owners. Most of us agree some class of gun, generally those made for combat, should be outlawed for civiliian use. For example, there is general agreement that automatic weapons should be banned.

    However, there is a lot of distrust of the government. Lots of Americans do not believe the government (the individuals that make up government) are acting with the citizenry's best interests in mind. I am one of them to a certain degree. What would/could government do with a list of registered gun owners is one example. Could this be used to compell a gun program whereby citizens are forced to give up their guns? Could it be used to levy taxes on these individuals? LK brought up her own fear that banning a class of guns, such as assault weapons, would lead to a slippery slope that would result in further and more draconian gun bans. While a slippery slope argument may be a logical fallacy, in and of itself, the argument highlights the general fear of gun owners in light of a distrust of those who run the government.

    I think there should be agreement that whatever gun regulations exist must be coherent with the 2nd amendment. The courts have been pretty clear that civilians have the right to own guns. I know there are some people who don't agree with this interpretation. The right to privacy is contested, yet our laws have been forced to comply with this constitutional interpretation.

    Let's look at the cause for this distrust. Democrat Presidential candidate, Eric Swalwell wants to ban and buyback all assault weapons.
    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/04/10/eric-swalwells-grand-plan-to-ban-and-buy-back-guns-gets-a-reality-check-not-for-sale-buddy-743201

    Again, to LK's point, he does not define what an assault weapon is.

    This is what Diane Feinstein once said
    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an
    out right ban
    , picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

    Jan Schakowsky (D - Ill)
    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which
    does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun
    ….”

    William Clay (D-MO)
    ” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns

    So, there is a reasonable fear, I think, that allowing for further regulations is a backdoor (or maybe just opening the front door) for those in government that want to get rid of all guns. And those people exist.

    So, in my estimation, there cannot be any gun regulation at this point. The people don't trust the representatives. Frankly, none of the regulations I have heard being proposed would actually reduce violence.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.30cb52416223


    We can reduce violence in America. I don't think focusing on guns is the way to do it. There are root causes for violence and guns are simply not the root cause.

    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  24. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
 

 
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 09:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •