The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Proposals on how to tackle the issue of gun related crimein United States

TKDB

@Applesauce

I understand you, your actions are self evident.

Again, in a sense, you are, hiding behind the Second Amendment, your made up name, and behind your computer as well, to protest, whoever doesn't agree, with your pro gun opinion, right?

"I don't think you understand what negative and positive rights are and how they apply to the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights.
the 2a is a formal recognition of my right, I don't need to hide behind anything."

Applesauce

@TKDB

do you have some point you are trying to make because I could use your words and substitute your tag and just change it to anti gun opinion, right?

ZeusAres42

The facts and stats remain the same and they are backed up not only by the likes of the US National Safety Council and numerous peer-reviewed studies but also The World Health Organisation. The facts are as follows:

• Gun violence including homicide, suicide, and injury are still a prevalent problem in many nations across the globe including the USA.
• It has been shown that ease of accessibility regarding firearms is linked with more homicide rates.
• Most people who possess a firearm within their homes are more likely to become victims of either suicide or homicide.
• Firearms have the capacity to cause far more damage than sharp objects (this is pretty much a no brainer) and they do. And the USA is no exception.
• Death by an assault from a firearm is still among the top leading causes of death within in the US. Sharp objects are also in that list, but they are farther down from firearms.
• Gun bans and/or restrictions are effective at preventing firearm-related violence.

Ref:

World Health Organisation https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/small_arms/en/

US National Safety Council – Lifetime odds of death for selected causes, United States, 2017. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

US National Safety Council – Gun related deaths in 2017. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

The above are substantial claims, and there is not one reputable authority that refutes them. These claims are also premises that support the conclusion that more could be done to reduce firearm violence; the given conclusion follows on logically from the premises. One might argue here that I am committing the argument from authority fallacy (argumentum ab auctoritate). However, in this instance, there is an exception to the rule where authority, in this case, is relevant.

An example of a fallacious argument from authority would be if I were to say “My neighbor is a really smart guy and he says gun violence is a significant problem in the US. Therefore, gun violence is a Significant problem.” This is indeed fallacious and thus invalid.

The reason why the argument from authority regarding gun violence is valid and perfectly acceptable here is that the authority being referenced consists of a plethora of highly credible people that have spent decades researching the issues surrounding gun violence that deserve at least some consideration.

By the way, while I am at this point I would like to point out that just because an argument may consist of what may generally be viewed as containing a fallacy doesn’t always mean to say that the argument is invalid, and the reason for this is the fact that there are often many exceptions to the “fallacy” rule if that makes sense? Ironically, downgrading and/or concluding with an immediacy that an argument is invalid because you’ve seen what you think is a fallacy is fallacious i.e. ‘argumentum ad logicam (AKA The Fallacy Fallacy).’

Anyway, I may have appeared to somewhat have digressed a little and so I will return more to the topic at current. What I would like to do now is take issue with some of the things regarding the original post which I wrote, as after some reflection I think some things could do with a retraction.

The fact is that there is crime surrounding both handguns and high powered guns and there does need to be something done to reduce the number of casualties that occur from gun-related crime each year. Now, while statistically more people in the US are killed every year by hand-guns this still does not justify the need to own much more high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice. Further, nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny. So, based on this high powered guns are not needed and can be rightly so, extinguished. So, this is one of the first steps to reducing casualties and/or deaths that occur as a result of high powered weapons; to make them inaccessible.

Next, we still have the issue of hand-gun related casualties and deaths. I have a few suggestions in regards to this and they are as follows:

1. Calibrate stricter laws so that the guns do not fall into the hands of bad or irresponsible people. You would do this by ensuring that gun owners and potential gun owners have regular background checks as well as psychological checks. These checks would take place every five years minimum.
   
2. Ensure that everyone that wants to own a gun has training in how to actually use it, and take a gun safety course.
3. Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains. These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing. 
   
4. Fine-tune laws/policies that would more robustly tackle the issues of drugs and gangs as a lot of gun crime also revolves around these factors. 
   

The bits I am taking issue with are highlighted in bold.

1. With regard to psychological checks, I do now hold that psychological checking would imply that a lot of firearm-related violence revolves around mental illness when in fact it doesn't, and statistically, what's more, is that there is hardly any evidence at all that links mental illness with firearm violence. Furthermore, this also stigmatism among the mentally ill and sets them up to be victims of hate crime.
   
2. With respect to police officers, I have to admit this bit is a bit ridiculous and seems to imply that a lot of gun-related violence revolves around police officers contributing to it when again this is statistically very rare. 
   
3. The last issue I have is with the actual title of this thread which I sometimes wonder if comes across as somewhat preachy.
   

Yeah, I don't always agree with everything I say either, and no I am not hearing voices haha. However, as Socrates Said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living" I also say the unexamined thought isn't worth thinking.

TKDB

@Applesauce

The point has been made twice now.

"do you have some point you are trying to make because I could use your words and substitute your tag and just change it to anti gun opinion, right?

Im pro Second Amendment, pro family, pro public, pro law abiding.

Those points, have been expressed, to the other pro gun enthusiasts as well.

You can play with your words, however you wish.

I went to DC, and saw the March For Our Lives rally, 250,000 people, supporting those people who were affected by the mass shooters crimes.

Where were you? 

Applesauce

@TKDB

I was earning a living, but goody for you, did it help, what problems where solved?  are the effects/results still present and evident?  if so what are they?  did that help "tackle the issue gun related crime"?  if so, how so?
I'm pro liberty and anti criminal.

TKDB

@Applesauce

Oh, so you're a pro gun enthusiast, who maybe doesn't hold, the same values as those supporters do then, right?

You value your guns, just as those supporters value the lives of the victims, who the mass shooters killed, via their various mass shootings crimes? 

I'm pro second amendment, pro law abiding, and pro public, and pro bill of rights as well.

Applesauce

TKDB said:

@Applesauce

Oh, so you're a pro gun enthusiast, who maybe doesn't hold, the same values as those supporters do then, right?

You value your guns, just as those supporters value the lives of the victims, who the mass shooters killed, via their various mass shootings crimes? 

I'm pro second amendment, pro law abiding, and pro public, and pro bill of rights as well.

what is your definition of a  "pro gun enthusiast"?
do you own and purchase things you don't value?  that would seem rather stupid if you didn't value what you own and purchase don't you think?
prove people who value guns as you put it (whatever that means) don't also value the lives of victims.

I'm pro liberty and anti criminal.

ZeusAres42

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention in my most recent post before this one the following:

However, if you makes you feel better to flag or call the post a fallacy then by all means do so. But, just remember that facts, reason, and logic do not care about your feelings or your deeply ingrained political ideologies for that matter as well as your deeply entrenched philosophical beliefs. My alternative suggestion would be that you see a Shrink to help you deal with your feelings.

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

The facts and stats remain the same and they are backed up not only by the likes of the US National Safety Council and numerous peer-reviewed studies but also The World Health Organisation. The facts are as follows:

• Gun violence including homicide, suicide, and injury are still a prevalent problem in many nations across the globe including the USA.
• It has been shown that ease of accessibility regarding firearms is linked with more homicide rates.
• Most people who possess a firearm within their homes are more likely to become victims of either suicide or homicide.
• Firearms have the capacity to cause far more damage than sharp objects (this is pretty much a no brainer) and they do. And the USA is no exception.
• Death by an assault from a firearm is still among the top leading causes of death within in the US. Sharp objects are also in that list, but they are farther down from firearms.
• Gun bans and/or restrictions are effective at preventing firearm-related violence.

Ref:

World Health Organisation https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/violence/small_arms/en/

US National Safety Council – Lifetime odds of death for selected causes, United States, 2017. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/

US National Safety Council – Gun related deaths in 2017. https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/guns/

The above are substantial claims, and there is not one reputable authority that refutes them. These claims are also premises that support the conclusion that more could be done to reduce firearm violence; the given conclusion follows on logically from the premises. One might argue here that I am committing the argument from authority fallacy (argumentum ab auctoritate). However, in this instance, there is an exception to the rule where authority, in this case, is relevant.

An example of a fallacious argument from authority would be if I were to say “My neighbor is a really smart guy and he says gun violence is a significant problem in the US. Therefore, gun violence is a Significant problem.” This is indeed fallacious and thus invalid.

The reason why the argument from authority regarding gun violence is valid and perfectly acceptable here is that the authority being referenced consists of a plethora of highly credible people that have spent decades researching the issues surrounding gun violence that deserve at least some consideration.

By the way, while I am at this point I would like to point out that just because an argument may consist of what may generally be viewed as containing a fallacy doesn’t always mean to say that the argument is invalid, and the reason for this is the fact that there are often many exceptions to the “fallacy” rule if that makes sense? Ironically, downgrading and/or concluding with an immediacy that an argument is invalid because you’ve seen what you think is a fallacy is fallacious i.e. ‘argumentum ad logicam (AKA The Fallacy Fallacy).’

Anyway, I may have appeared to somewhat have digressed a little and so I will return more to the topic at current. What I would like to do now is take issue with some of the things regarding the original post which I wrote, as after some reflection I think some things could do with a retraction.

The fact is that there is crime surrounding both handguns and high powered guns and there does need to be something done to reduce the number of casualties that occur from gun-related crime each year. Now, while statistically more people in the US are killed every year by hand-guns this still does not justify the need to own much more high powered weapons capable of killing numerous amounts of people in seconds. High powered weapons are not needed to for self-defense where a simple hand-gun will suffice. Further, nor will either hand-guns or high powered guns be enough to do anything in the extremely improbable event of Government Tyranny. So, based on this high powered guns are not needed and can be rightly so, extinguished. So, this is one of the first steps to reducing casualties and/or deaths that occur as a result of high powered weapons; to make them inaccessible.

Next, we still have the issue of hand-gun related casualties and deaths. I have a few suggestions in regards to this and they are as follows:

1. Calibrate stricter laws so that the guns do not fall into the hands of bad or irresponsible people. You would do this by ensuring that gun owners and potential gun owners have regular background checks as well as psychological checks. These checks would take place every five years minimum.
   
2. Ensure that everyone that wants to own a gun has training in how to actually use it, and take a gun safety course.
3. Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains. These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing. 
   
4. Fine-tune laws/policies that would more robustly tackle the issues of drugs and gangs as a lot of gun crime also revolves around these factors. 
   

The bits I am taking issue with are highlighted in bold.

1. With regard to psychological checks, I do now hold that psychological checking would imply that a lot of firearm-related violence revolves around mental illness when in fact it doesn't, and statistically, what's more, is that there is hardly any evidence at all that links mental illness with firearm violence. Furthermore, this also stigmatism among the mentally ill and sets them up to be victims of hate crime.
   
2. With respect to police officers, I have to admit this bit is a bit ridiculous and seems to imply that a lot of gun-related violence revolves around police officers contributing to it when again this is statistically very rare. 
   
3. The last issue I have is with the actual title of this thread which I sometimes wonder if comes across as somewhat preachy.
   

Yeah, I don't always agree with everything I say either, and no I am not hearing voices haha. However, as Socrates Said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living" I also say the unexamined thought isn't worth thinking.

As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out; and you've chosen some pretty poor sources.  Anti-gun 538 explains some of the problems with the CDC's numbers (which you've posted elsewhere and which were used by the National Safety Council in the reference you've cited here).  In gun control advocate David Hemenway's words, “When I looked at the 2017 numbers, I went, ‘Oh, my god, you just can’t use those numbers.” 

Most of the deaths noted in the WHO study come from suicides and war-related deaths, neither of which will help us understand issue at hand, which is crime.  In fact, none of those organizations are particularly relevant to the topic of crime.  Their inserting themselves into the conversation smacks of politicization, their "studies" are designed to support a foregone conclusion (AKA junk science). 

There is no justification for an "assault rifle" ban.  We have already tried that and even gun control advocate David Hemenway had to admit such an approach would be a failure.  As co-author Michael Siegel put it;

“Although I completely understand the desire to ban assault weapons, I just don’t see empirical evidence that such bans have any substantial impact on homicide rates. These bans are most often based on characteristics of guns that are not directly tied to their lethality,” Siegel said.

“Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns,” he added.

The study further noted that;

It did not find any significant relationship between changes in gun ownership and homicide or suicide rates.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/04/assault-weapon-bans-dont-lower-homicide-rates-new-study-says/

ZeusAres42

@Applesauce

that's usually what happens, it devolves into wishful thinking, fantasy and "what ifs".  People continue to bark up the wrong tree.  Point in case with all the democratic candidates talking about gun bans etc, that is driving sales just like when Obama did it.  Why they continue to make the same mistakes rather than learn from the previous ones made I'll never understand.  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  Crime and criminals is a complicated subject where as the knee jerk response for more laws and bans is not.  Though the latter won't fix the core issue.

This is a good point. As I already agreed with Brandyknight this is a complex issue with a wide picture. The reason why your response is a reasonable one is that you do see a big picture and agree that at least something more could be done to address the issue of violent crime.

Furthermore, there are just as blinkered people on the right where there thinking is obviously simplistic and as of the left too. And I also think the statements "You cannot reason a person out of the position they never reasoned themselves into in the first place" - Ben Goldacre Bad Science, and "never underestimate the difficulty of challenging false beliefs with facts" - Henry Rosovsky Harvard Economist holds very true here.  Hence why I have now muted a few people as I refuse to continue a debate with someone that is obviously not agreeable to reason.

You've got the polarized mentality of the left that holds that guns are the problem and nothing else, and then you've got the irrational people  of the right that blame all gun violence on mental illness or worse to conclude that nothing should be done about gun violence and hold it's perfectly acceptable that thousands of people get murdered each year. These particular viewpoints here are enough for me to think "okay, I am obviously not speaking with a sane individual."

TKDB

@Applesauce

https://www.conservapedia.com/Gun_enthusiast

"Gun enthusiats

Gun enthusiast or Gun nut is an American colloquialterm that describes firearms "hobbyists" who are very involved with the gun culture. However, firearms and weapons are perceived differently based on political ideals, and therefore the intention of those using the term it will have different connotations. "

"Positive Conservative Pro Second Amendment Perception

To conservatives, "gun nuts" and being a firearms enthusiast is a positive quality reflecting self-relianceand the maxim that "a right not used is a right lost." Being a gun enthusiast is an admirable trait to these above types of people, since the unalienable rights of the Second Amendment act as the primary deterrence against big government Nanny state-Police state tyranny.[1] Thus the "gun nut" slogan of Molon labe laconically represents that deterrence."

"Thus most gun owners embrace the term "gun nut" affectionately. This is evidenced by many popular gun blogs, gun podcasts, forums and outdoors magazines such as Field and Stream using the term positively. Field and Stream has a column called "The Gun Nut".[5] "

"In truth, most gun owners are respectable, responsible people, who seem on different than any other people. However, there are a small number of people who do act much as fiction portrays. This continues to fuel the fire against the right to have and bear arms.[6] "

"Negative Liberal Gun Control - Anti-Rights / Anti Second Amendment Perspective

To liberals, homeland security officials, or anti-terrorism strategists, "gun nut" is an insult. They regard the term as a pejorative stereotype hurled at gun owners by gun control activists as a way of suggesting that they exhibit abnormal behavior, are fanatical, or even are a threat to the safety of others.[7][8][9][10][11] While the United States faced a possible armed invasion by a foreign army during World War II (as noted above), today America faces attacks such as San Bernadino, California or Sandy Hook, Connecticut. "Gun nut" refers to people who are resisting efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorist or mentally ill people.

In media

The idea of a "gun nut" has been painted in a variety of different ways for many years in the United States.News reports push this idea whenever possible, and movies, TV shows, and books often promote this idea as well. Not only are characters portrayed this way, but others' responses are staged to cast a negative light on such people. The picture which is fed to the American people is usually that of some foolish, grouchy (often old) man who is obsessed with guns. He will often be shown to threaten others, break the law frequently and carelessly, and be generally reckless. They will often be shown shooting at law enforcement officers or other people for no good reason. They are also shown going on rants of blended truth and extreme exaggeration to discredit both portions of the rant in the viewers' eyes. Most fictional "gun nuts" are shown as southern "rednecks."[12] "

The above is an elaboration on the term pro gun enthusiast.

"what is your definition of a  "pro gun enthusiast"?"

What I own, has value.

"do you own and purchase things you don't value?  that would seem rather stupid if you didn't value what you own and purchase don't you think?"

The below question, isn't a difficult question to answer, (but I see, how you presented a response to it, by apparently suggesting me to prove something to you?

I don't have to, the March For Our Lives rally, was proof enough, in itself to me.

(You value your guns, just as those supporters value the lives of the victims, who the mass shooters killed, via their various mass shootings crimes?)

And your response:

"prove people who value guns as you put it (whatever that means) don't also value the lives of victims.

I'm pro liberty and anti criminal."

I'm pro second amendment, pro law abiding, pro family and public, and pro bill of rights as well.

Applesauce

@ZeusAres42
well said, because of the polarization and entrenched defensive positions people have take on (insert subject here, there are many) no real progress is made and in fact more harm than good is actually accomplished, i.e. gun sales during Obama's years.
If anyone can't agree criminals shouldn't have guns, be appropriately punished etc then I'd mute them too.  There's a lot of science devoted to the study from crime and criminals, though little ever really seems to come of it.  In my conspiracy opinion people who can't admit something they don't agree with, don't like can also do good things are a huge part of the problem.  Much like the videos "Trump isn't that bad" where they can't admit that he's done at least one thing good.  So here we are, 2 opposite sides with their backs against the wall.  Since Trump has been in office gun sales have been pretty low as evidenced by the prices which I track almost daily.  Though the recent Democrat candidates have been talking up some serious gun restrictions which seems to be driving up sales again, though not too much yet.
We should be looking at how to give people hope.  Show them the value of life, their own and others.  Respect for themselves and others.  There are plenty of areas to try this or any other experiment, Chicago might be a good place to start.  But it has never really happened, how come?  It's difficult to pander to people who are self sufficient and need little to no government involvement.  It's beneficial to have a poor, scared, hopeless voter base you can make empty promises to imo.
I'm not sure if you are old enough to remember what NYC was like in the old days and their crime rates.  They did and tried things to improve the crime rates, some worked, going from one of the worst to one of the safest.  And yet afaik no such effort has been applied to places like Chicago.  We do know certain things work based on history.  If we as a country and society were actually serious about reduce murders, crime then it seem logical we would do those things we know to work.  This constant barking up the wrong tree, wording to fit agendas (only focusing on gun murders) has done nothing to help the problem but has done much to frustrate and progress that could be made. 
Gun bans, more restrictions, confiscations etc has been a long fight and will continue to be so.  What ground has the anti gun people made?  Gun stocks banned?  bfd  Imagine if the time,money and effort has been put towards non controversial solutions rather than used for more gun restrictions/bans and to fight those restrictions/bans.
For the anti gun people are more restrictions and bans the only answer/solution you can come up with?  I rarely ever hear any other solutions offered, thus these threads that keep popping up.

TKDB

@Applesauce

"Gun bans, more restrictions, confiscations etc has been a long fight and will continue to be so.  What ground has the anti gun people made?  Gun stocks banned?"

"bfd  Imagine if the time,money and effort has been put towards non controversial solutions rather than used for more gun restrictions/bans and to fight those restrictions/bans."

The below mass shooters crimes, are a big deal:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html?r=https://www.google.com/

"Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Fast Facts

CNN Library

(CNN) — Here is a list of the deadliest single day mass shootings in US history from 1949 to the present.

If the shooter was killed or died by suicide during the incident, that death is not included in the total."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting

"2017 Las Vegas shooting

"Las Vegas shooting" redirects here. For other uses, see Las Vegas shooting (disambiguation).

On the night of October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddockopened fire on a crowd of concertgoers at the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. He killed 58 people and wounded 422, and the ensuing panic brought the injury total to 851. Paddock, a 64-year-old man from Mesquite, Nevada, fired more than 1,100 rounds of ammunition from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel. The shooting occurred between 10:05 and 10:15 p.m. PDT; about an hour later, Paddock was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His motive remains undetermined. "

"The incident is the deadliest mass shootingcommitted by an individual in the history of the United States. It focused attention on gun laws in the U.S., particularly with regard to bump stocks, which Paddock used to fire shots in rapid succession, in a manner similar to automatic weapons.[2] As a result, bump stocks were banned by the U.S. Justice Department in December 2018, with the regulation in effect as of March 2019."

"For the anti gun people are more restrictions and bans the only answer/solution you can come up with?  I rarely ever hear any other solutions offered, thus these threads that keep popping up."

Solutions?

What is the probable solution from some of the pro gun enthusiast crowd, leave the Second Amendment, alone, as its currently written, from the 18th century, and leave it unchanged, to not reflect the gun problems that the United States has become imbeded with, via the mass shooters gun violence crimes, along with the other criminals, and offenders gun violence crimes as well?

The 393 million guns, along with the illegal guns, have been slowly flooding the US, for years now?

 Maybe a slow down, on nationwide gun production could be, a probable solution?

Maybe, a death penalty solution, could be written and amended into the Second Amendment, to reflect the gun problems, that some have illegally affected, the rest of the country with, for years now? 

A third solution, could be a Reparations Solution?

The family of the Shooter, could pay the victims family reparations, for the crimes, or crime, committed by the shooter?

Applesauce

@TKDB

as I have already said and you apparently didn't read or understand, the only proposals anti -gun people make are more restrictions and bans, so I ask again are those the only solutions they can come up with?  Because that is all that is ever mentioned.

TKDB

@Applesauce

Solutions?

What is the probable solution from some of the pro gun enthusiast crowd, leave the Second Amendment, alone, as its currently written, from the 18th century, and leave it unchanged, to not reflect the gun problems that the United States has become imbeded with, via the mass shooters gun violence crimes, along with the other criminals, and offenders gun violence crimes as well?

The 393 million guns, along with the illegal guns, have been slowly flooding the US, for years now?

 Maybe a slow down, on nationwide gun production could be, a probable solution?

Maybe, a death penalty solution, could be written and amended into the Second Amendment, to reflect the gun problems, that some have illegally affected, the rest of the country with, for years now? 

A third solution, could be a Reparations Solution?

The family of the Shooter, could pay the victims family reparations, for the crimes, or crime, committed by the shooter? 

"as I have already said and you apparently didn't read or understand, the only proposals anti -gun people make are more restrictions and bans, so I ask again are those the only solutions they can come up with?  Because that is all that is ever mentioned."

TKDB

@Applesauce

Solutions?

What is the probable solution from some of the pro gun enthusiast crowd, leave the Second Amendment, alone, as its currently written, from the 18th century, and leave it unchanged, to not reflect the gun problems that the United States has become imbeded with, via the mass shooters gun violence crimes, along with the other criminals, and offenders gun violence crimes as well?

The 393 million guns, along with the illegal guns, have been slowly flooding the US, for years now?

 Maybe a slow down, on nationwide gun production could be, a probable solution?

Maybe, a death penalty solution, could be written and amended into the Second Amendment, to reflect the gun problems, that some have illegally affected, the rest of the country with, for years now? 

A third solution, could be a Reparations Solution?

The family of the Shooter, could pay the victims family reparations, for the crimes, or crime, committed by the shooter? 

"as I have already said and you apparently didn't read or understand, the only proposals anti -gun people make are more restrictions and bans, so I ask again are those the only solutions they can come up with?  Because that is all that is ever mentioned."

MayCaesar

@TKDB

You are missing the point, as usual. There is plenty of gun rights advocates who themselves do not have guns. I certainly do not have any guns and do not plan on purchasing any: I feel safe enough in this country to go out of my way to buy a weapon that has a slight chance of saving my life in the slight chance that my life is threatened by a criminal.

A lot of us defend the gun rights out of principle, out of our respect for individual freedoms and the Constitution. The perception that gun right advocates are all Texas cowboys with large gun collections is deeply erroneous.

Applesauce

@TKDB
you prove my point, no other solutions than to focus on the inanimate object, sad

ZeusAres42

@Applesauce

I just found something rather interesting after finding out what Neuroscientist Sam Harris (A guy I have a lot of respect for as a debater and his intellect) has to say about guns and gun violence. I haven't read all this yet but just from reading the first bit, I think this is the point that I have been trying to make as of late. I think this is your position too if I'm not mistaken.

January 2, 2013

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence.

https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Oh yeah, and as of the murder rate of New York, it really is great at how much it has reduced and astonishingly, now the murder rate of London in the UK is higher than that of NYC.

Moreover, there's actually a video of Sam Harris on "The riddle of the gun."

I'm glad about the point he also made about the second amendment which I also agree with. 

TKDB

@Applesauce

Your pro gun enthusiast mindset rhetoric, is all I'm witnessing, from your carefully chosen set of words, right Applesauce? 

"you prove my point, no other solutions than to focus on the inanimate object, sad"

So says you.

You can't speak for the murdered victims, killed by those mass shooters, can you? 

Do you believe, or think that the victims families would agree with your description of a mass shooters gun, as an inanimate object?

Applesauce

@TKDB

tell ya what why don't you pull up the most recent interview of Mr. Pollock who's daughter was shot 9 times at the school in Florida, see what he thinks about arming teachers, then get back to me.  Perhaps learn more about the topic so you don't come off so ignorant about it?

TKDB

@MayCaesar

@Applesause

On Fox news, some of the commentary was focused on the conversation on "Corporal Punishment," just seconds ago.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/california-synagogue-shooting-live-updates/index.html

"Deadly shooting at California synagogue

CNN

Updated 1 min ago8:16 p.m. ET, April 27, 2019"

• What's happening: A man opened fire at a San Diego-area synagogue on the last day of Passover. The town's mayor called it a "hate crime."
• Victims: At least one person is dead and three others are injured, the mayor says.
• Suspect: Police have identified the suspect as 19-year-old John Earnest and are investigating a "manifesto" he wrote. "

"The suspect has been identified as 19-year-old John Earnest, San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore told reporters at a press conference.

He has no prior contact with law enforcement, according to officials.

Gore said that authorities are aware of a "manifesto" that Earnest wrote, and are currently reviewing the document.

He also added that officials are looking at the possibility that Earnest was associated with a mosque arson in nearby Escondido from last month."

The gun that the alleged shooter used, was apparently an AR-15?

This alleged gun violence crime, looks to be a hate crime.

TKDB

@Applesause

Ignorance?

You're a pro gun enthusiast individual, who apparently wants to relable, the 393 million guns that exist in the United States, along with the illegal guns that have been sold by the illegal gun dealers, to the career criminals, offenders, who have used their illegal guns to kill people with, as inanimate objects?

Your argument, failed, because your "ignorance" word, failed your counter argument, for you.

"tell ya what why don't you pull up the most recent interview of Mr. Pollock who's daughter was shot 9 times at the school in Florida, see what he thinks about arming teachers, then get back to me.  Perhaps learn more about the topic so you don't come off so ignorant about it?"

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Do you share equally the burden of use to lethal force?

TKDB

@John_C_87

Why don't you call your local law enforcement, and present to them your below question? 

"Do you share equally the burden of use to lethal force?"

ZeusAres42

@ZeusAres42

I just found something rather interesting after finding out what Neuroscientist Sam Harris (A guy I have a lot of respect for as a debater and his intellect) has to say about guns and gun violence. I haven't read all this yet but just from reading the first bit, this is the point that I have been trying to make as of late.

January 2, 2013

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence.

https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/


Moreover, there's actually a video of Sam Harris on "The riddle of the gun."


I'm glad about the point he also made about the second amendment which I also agree with. 

Quite frankly, the idea that anyone could not see this as a reasonable position to hold regarding the gun debate is something I think I will never make head or tail of.

ZeusAres42

After reading full posts of Sam Harris and listening to some of his videos on the Gun debate I feel I now have to retract and/or alter some positions that I may or may not have presented here as well as on other debate platforms. One thing I will definitely not be retracting and probably never is that I hold the typical argument often posed about needing guns in case of the improbable event of government tyranny is ludicrous!  Sam Harris actually puts it much better than me I think when he writes:

The amendment seems to have been written to allow the states to check the power of the federal government by maintaining their militias. Given the changes that have occurred in our military, and even in our politics, the idea that a few pistols and an AR 15 in every home constitutes a necessary bulwark against totalitarianism is fairly ridiculous. If you believe that the armed forces of the United States might one day come for you—and you think your cache of small arms will suffice to defend you if they do—I’ve got a black helicopter to sell you. - https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Indeed, this argument is ridiculous! What was relevant and appropriate centuries ago (AKA argumentum ad antiquitatem) is not the case anymore. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee of the 21st century.; time to ground ourselves in modern day reality!

The things I would like to retract and/or alter are as follows:

The calibration of laws so that guns don't get into the wrong hands.

I am making an altercation here. I am not going to say that laws that help prevent bad people getting guns should be retracted as that too is ludicrous. What I will say now, however, is that stricter gun laws, bans, etc can only go so far and are not the be all end all solution to gun violence in the US. Furthermore, if memory serves me correctly from recent reading it is astonishingly easy to acquire a gun illegally anyway in the US. 

There does indeed need to be a good person with a gun that is able to fend off an assailant. However, this good person needs to be a responsible gun owner and be sufficiently trained at being able to use this force in a given situation. A good person with a gun is of no use if they haven't got a clue how to use a firearm, never been in the line of fire or close to it, and cracks under duress compared with a sufficiently trained armed guard. To understand this one needs to also realize that we're dealing with reality here; not some Hollywood movie. There is a very good reason as to why armed response units spend an inordinate amount of time practicing for deadly scenarios like this.

Put in place a stricter selection process for all Police Officers. As we have seen in past times there are Police Officers that are trigger-happy and tend to rely more on their guns than their actual brains. These courses of action would entail psychological tests, including intelligence testing.

I will withdraw this as this is fallacious reasoning. Police brutality and deaths from the legal intervention are very rare according to varying statistics. This was akin to a hasty generalization as well as somewhat an opinion based on little information at the time. 

Well, that's about it from me that I think needed reviewing.

TKDB

https://heavy-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/heavy.com/news/2019/04/perkins-square-baptist-church-shooting-baltimore/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://heavy.com/news/2019/04/perkins-square-baptist-church-shooting-baltimore/ 

"Shooting at Cookout Near Perkins Square Baptist Church: 8 Wounded and 1 Dead"

"On April 28, a reported shooting took place near Perkins Square Baptist church in Baltimore, Maryland near the 2500 Block Edmondson. More news is forthcoming, however, there are reports of at least eight victims. At 6:13 p.m., Baltimore police confirmed that one of the wounded victims has died. It appears that shooting was not directly related to the church, but an isolated event that took place at two cookouts happening nearby.

Acting mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young arrived on the scene around 7 p.m. and announced that a shooter walked up to this intersection and began shooting “indiscriminately into the crowd” at a cookout happening on both sides of the street off Edmondson Ave. Baltimore police. They currently on the search for the one suspect.

The suspect has been reported to be a black male. He approached the intersection in West Baltimore and began shooting into the crowd."

"Baltimore Sun reporter Justin Fenton tweeted, “Source who listened to ShotSpotter audio of west side shooting of five or more people happening now: “You can hear an ice cream truck in the background”

"There were dozens of evidence markers set up near the corner of Edmondson and Whitmore as the investigation into the shooting in West Baltimore proceeds."

"There are reports of seeing the possible shooter, a male, fleeing the scene in a car."

"Kelsey Kushner of CBS News confirmed the shooting took place at a Sunday cookout near Edmondson Avenue, adjacent to Perkins Square Baptist Church."

Alertpage was the first break the news, tweeting out the information at 5:34 p.m. ET, “Baltimore, Maryland 7 SHOOTING VICTIMS – 2500 BLK EDMONDSON – SEARCHING FOR ADDITIONAL VICTIMS #BREAKING”

"A picture near the area shows the church was tweeted with the caption, “On the scene of a reported shooting, with scanner reports indicating as many as seven victims near a Baltimore church on Edmundson Avenue. Police have Edmundson Ave blocked at N. Warwick Ave.” WMAR2 News reported, “A neighbor told me a bunch of people were having a cook out when ‘someone rolled up and started shooting. 7 people shot. I asked if this is shocking or concerning, it happened steps from her door… and she shrugged and said ‘It’s Baltimore.'” 

John_C_87

@TKDB ;

Why don't you call your local law enforcement, and present to them your below question? 

It’s self-evident truth they do.

TKDB

@John_C_87

Your self truth philosophy, is off topic.

John_C_87

Your self truth philosophy, is off topic.

Proposals on how to tackle the issue of gun related crime. Violations of the Forth Addition to united state in constitutional right to common defense is an introduction of a crime not represented fully in gun related crime. As a Bill pardon this pun.

Forcing some-one else to bear the burden of lethal force is a form of military draft. Very elaborate but none the same a military draft. Without the recognition of a person in a civil trail holding ownership of a gun as proof of equality. They use democracy to hide the truth they are assigning the burden of lethal force to others. To limit their own risk. This means they will have not understanding of cost or self-value in maintaining liberty for all.  

TKDB

@John_C_87

All I've come to expect from you, is your reiterating of your truth philosophy ideology, because you have purposefully chosen, to take every opportunity to push your ideology onto other's, via your computer, and the internet itself?

I'm guessing that the below, may define your "truth philosophy," stance?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic ;

"Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case.

Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and such a central place in people’s lives?

The Correspondence Theory

The classic suggestion comes from Aristotle(384–322 BCE): “To say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” In other words, the world provides “what is” or “what is not,” and the true saying or thought corresponds to the fact so provided. This idea appeals to common sense and is the germ of what is called the correspondence theory of truth. As it stands, however, it is little more than a platitude and far less than a theory. Indeed, it may amount to merely a wordy paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of some assertion, one says “that corresponds with the facts.” Only if the notions of fact and correspondence can be further developed will it be possible to understand truth in these terms.

Unfortunately, many philosophers doubt whether an acceptable explanation of facts and correspondence can be given. Facts, as they point out, are strange entities. It is tempting to think of them as structures or arrangements of things in the world. However, as the Austrian-born philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, structures have spatial locations, but facts do not. The Eiffel Tower can be moved from Paris to Rome, but the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris cannot be moved anywhere. Furthermore, critics urge, the very idea of what the facts are in a given case is nothing apart from people’s sincere beliefs about the case, which means those beliefs that people take to be true. Thus, there is no enterprise of first forming a belief or theory about some matter and then in some new process stepping outside the belief or theory to assess whether it corresponds with the facts. There are, indeed, processes of checking and verifying beliefs, but they work by bringing up further beliefs and perceptions and assessing the original in light of those. In actual investigations, what tells people what to believe is not the world or the facts but how they interpret the world or select and conceptualize the facts.

Coherence And Pragmatist Theories

Starting in the mid-19th century, this line of criticism led some philosophers to think that they should concentrate on larger theories, rather than sentences or assertions taken one at a time. Truth, on this view, must be a feature of the overall body of belief considered as a system of logically interrelated components—what is called the “web of belief.” It might be, for example, an entire physical theory that earns its keep by making predictions or enabling people to control things or by simplifying and unifying otherwise disconnected phenomena. An individual belief in such a system is true if it sufficiently coheres with, or makes rational sense within, enough other beliefs; alternatively, a belief system is true if it is sufficiently internally coherent. Such were the views of the British idealists, including F.H. Bradley and H.H. Joachim, who, like all idealists, rejected the existence of mind-independent facts against which the truth of beliefs could be determined (see alsorealism: realism and truth).

Yet coherentism too seems inadequate, since it suggests that human beings are trapped in the sealed compartment of their own beliefs, unable to know anything of the world beyond. Moreover, as the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russellpointed out, nothing seems to prevent there being many equally coherent but incompatible belief systems. Yet at best only one of them can be true."

TKDB

@John_C_87

Practical solutions to the excessive gun violence crimes that have created thousands of victims since the creation of the Bill of Rights, and then the Bill of Rights, getting abused by the Second Amendment abuses by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners.

Solutions:

(While a probable solution, from some of the pro gun enthusiast crowd, would be leaving the Second Amendment, alone, as its currently written, from the 18th century, and leave it unchanged, to not reflect the gun problems that the United States has become imbeded with, via the mass shooters gun violence crimes, along with the other criminals, and offenders gun violence crimes as well?

The 393 million guns, along with the illegal guns, have been slowly flooding the US, for years now?)

Maybe a slow down, on nationwide gun production could be, a probable solution?

Maybe, a death penalty solution, could be written and amended into the Second Amendment, to reflect the gun problems, that some have illegally affected, the rest of the country with, for years now? 

A third solution, could be a Reparations Solution?

The family of the Shooter, could pay the victims family reparations, for the crimes, or crime, committed by the shooter?  

John_C_87

All I've come to expect from you, is your reiterating of your truth philosophy ideology, because you have purposefully chosen, to take every opportunity to push your ideology onto other's, via your computer, and the internet itself?

(I'm guessing )that the below, may define your "truth philosophy," stance?

 

Whole 1: Free of wound or injury

: recovered from a wound or injury.

: being healed

: free of defect or impairment

:physically sound and healthy: free from disease or deformity

:mentally or emotionally sound.

2. having all its proper parts or components: Complete, unmodified

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whole

Truth: the body of real things, events, and fact: actuality.

: state of being the case: fact

: a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as truth.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

Practical solutions to the excessive gun violence crimes that have created thousands of victims since the creation of the Bill of Rights, and then the Bill of Rights, getting abused by the Second Amendment abuses by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners.

The Forth and Fifth Amendment are being abused by people when any person is kill outside the boundary of capital punishment within a united state of Constitution. This is the basic principle which describes a united state.

A third solution, could be a Reparations Solution? I agree gun owners who believe a mass shooting could have been avoid, or at minimum limited by the constitutional common defense, be it return fire, or ballistic shield should be able to receive reparations from those people who have receive reparation as a common defense. Gun owners should also be able to apply for reparation from non-gun owners in a court of law, for addition cost placed on serving the united state as a legal common defense, the non-gun owner is negligent in this matter by choice. We know this to be true as the military elects to reserve draft in states of national emergency setting a precedent.

 The family of the Shooter, could pay the victims family reparations, for the crimes, or crime, committed by the shooter?  

Slavery and prisoners of War have been abolished. This includes prisoners of civil war.

TKDB

@John_C_87

More of your truth philosophy, and watching you tend to it, like an internet gardener.

billbatard

Ban most guns

ZeusAres42

@billbatard

Banning most guns won't stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people. 

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

How could you ban the illegal guns, that the illegal gun dealer, sold to the illegal gun owners?

The criminals, and offenders it would seem apparently, have the advantage, via in how they are getting their guns to commit their crimes with, right?

393 million guns in the United States exists, outnumbering the 325 million US citizens altogether, is a bizarre fact.

A way to equal the illegal gun debacle that has slowly been evolving in the US for years now, destroy the guns by melting them down, and give the illegal gun owner, a mandatory death sentence, Nationwide?

"Banning most guns won't stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people."

CYDdharta

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

How could you ban the illegal guns, that the illegal gun dealer, sold to the illegal gun owners?

The criminals, and offenders it would seem apparently, have the advantage, via in how they are getting their guns to commit their crimes with, right?

393 million guns in the United States exists, outnumbering the 325 million US citizens altogether, is a bizarre fact.

A way to equal the illegal gun debacle that has slowly been evolving in the US for years now, destroy the guns by melting them down, and give the illegal gun owner, a mandatory death sentence, Nationwide?

"Banning most guns won't stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people."

So your answer to a woman who was convicted of writing bad checks and bought a black market gun to defend herself from her insane ex is to melt her gun and give her gun dealer the death penalty????  Feel free to explain your reasoning.

TKDB

@CYDdharta

You mindfully create a hypothetical situation, and then punctuate your made up scenario with 4 question marks?

And then weirdly ask me, to explain my reasoning to you?

"So your answer to a woman who was convicted of writing bad checks and bought a black market gun to defend herself from her insane ex is to melt her gun and give her gun dealer the death penalty????  Feel free to explain your reasoning."

John_C_87

 @ZeusAres42 ;

Banning most guns won't stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people. 

This truth not whole truth. The argument you make has been shaped by skillful misdirection. In whole truth, yes, banning and removing guns places limited number of people at risk of being shot as criminal by changing statistical information. As more gun owners who follow law are placed by legislation as criminal by holding a common defense to the general welfare.

This strategy will sway the number of criminal shootings by average as new criminals are created by legislation. The swing of statistics only works for a short period of time to give a public idea of overall improvement. This is by fact as the know legality of death from the gun owner is used to create a civil common defense to the general welfare. The burden of lethal force is lifted from the constitutional state of equal allowing larger and larger civil lawsuits to create bigger earnings.

John_C_87

In basic principle this uses civil litigators as a scape goat for poor constitutional legislation.

Applesauce

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

How could you ban the illegal guns, that the illegal gun dealer, sold to the illegal gun owners?

The criminals, and offenders it would seem apparently, have the advantage, via in how they are getting their guns to commit their crimes with, right?

393 million guns in the United States exists, outnumbering the 325 million US citizens altogether, is a bizarre fact.

A way to equal the illegal gun debacle that has slowly been evolving in the US for years now, destroy the guns by melting them down, and give the illegal gun owner, a mandatory death sentence, Nationwide?

"Banning most guns won't stop people from getting guns illegally and killing people."

illegal gun dealer?  what's that mean?
illegal gun owner, you mean criminal right?

yes criminals have an advantage, they share guns as well, there was a study or something of the sort which basically came up with a length of time it took them to recover a stolen gun when used in a crime, the average time was 14 years, from the time it was stolen or gotten by whatever illegal means until it is recovered from a crime/crime scene.

is 393 million in private hands? 
do you think it's bizarre to own a handgun and a rifle by one person?  How many guns do you think an average hunter owns?
do those figures you use of 393 million include guns of antiquities? black power? single shot? bolt action?
people do collect historical or similar guns right?  How many of those are part of your numbers?
what good would destroying the guns do exactly?  
what happens to the guns recovered from criminals, do you know?

ZeusAres42

How could you ban the illegal guns, that the illegal gun dealer, sold to the illegal gun owners?

You mean how could you prevent guns from getting into the hands of bad people right? Because if you banned something because that was already illegal you would be making it legal.

The criminals, and offenders it would seem apparently, have the advantage, via in how they are getting their guns to commit their crimes with, right?

And what would that advantage be?

393 million guns in the United States exists, outnumbering the 325 million US citizens altogether, is a bizarre fact.

Yes, there are lots of guns in the United States.

A way to equal the illegal gun debacle that has slowly been evolving in the US for years now, destroy the guns by melting them down, and give the illegal gun owner, a mandatory death sentence, Nationwide?

I can see how one might get angry with recent events and make this assertion. However, I don't agree with it as I think this is a reflection of black and white thinking and failure to recognize that there are many reasons as to why someone might get a gun illegally with not all of them being that they are cold-blooded killers intent on killing someone for fun.

Sorry but to suggest that a person should be sentenced to death based merely on the premise that they possess a gun illegally is an extreme idea that also reflects dichotomous thinking. 

TKDB

Another shooter incident:


https://www-ajc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ajc.com/news/national/shot-university-north-carolina-shooter-custody-source-says/mWZ1wrXa1PpYDVwuqqVA8H/amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.ajc.com/news/national/shot-university-north-carolina-shooter-custody-source-says/mWZ1wrXa1PpYDVwuqqVA8H/

"2 dead, 4 injured in shooting at University of North Carolina, suspect in custody"

"Two people were killed and four injured in a shooting at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Tuesday evening according to WSOC-TV.

Mecklenburg Emergency Medical Services Agency said on Twitter that two people were found dead at the scene, two others have life-threatening injuries and two others have injuries that are not life-threatening. They said the numbers could change."

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

The gun violence crime in the United States, is an every shade of human skin problem.

Non race on race gun violence brutality, and race on race brutality.

Illegal aliens, or immigrants, have killed innocent U.S. citizens, in various parts of the country.

There was a shooting today in North Carolina, where a shooter, killed two people, and wounded others.


"However, I don't agree with it as I think this is a reflection of black and white thinking."


"I can see how one might get angry with recent events and make this assertion. However, I don't agree with it as I think this is a reflection of black and white thinking and failure to recognize that there are many reasons as to why someone might get a gun illegally with not all of them being that they are cold-blooded killers intent on killing someone for fun."

The illegal gun owner, who maybe sells or uses illegal drugs?

The illegal gun dealer, who sells gun to make a living, off of the drug dealer, and drug user? 

The illegal gun owner, who's violating his or her parole agreement? 

The illegal gun owner, whos robbed, or stolen other guns from someone else's property? 

Whats your self defined definition of an illegal gun owner, who's owning a gun, and then crimes get committed each day, by a gun owning ex-con, who maybe has an issue with another illegal gun owner? 

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

The gun violence crime in the United States, is an every shade of human skin problem.

So you're now saying that gun violence in the US is something to do with someone's skin color?

Non race on race gun violence brutality, and race on race brutality.

Firstly, if something is non-race it is no longer in existence.

Secondly, if you mean the same race on the same race, as well as different races, attacking each other then I don't see your point here. 

Illegal aliens, or immigrants, have killed innocent U.S. citizens, in various parts of the country.

All different kinds of people have killed other people regardless of whether they are natives or otherwise.

There was a shooting today in North Carolina, where a shooter, killed two people, and wounded others.

One emotional piece of media coverage is not representative of an entire population, nor a reflection of the much wider picture surrounding gun violence or any of the violent crime in general within the US.

"However, I don't agree with it as I think this is a reflection of black and white thinking."


"I can see how one might get angry with recent events and make this assertion. However, I don't agree with it as I think this is a reflection of black and white thinking and failure to recognize that there are many reasons as to why someone might get a gun illegally with not all of them being that they are cold-blooded killers intent on killing someone for fun."

The illegal gun owner, who maybe sells or uses illegal drugs?

The illegal gun dealer, who sells gun to make a living, off of the drug dealer, and drug user? 

The illegal gun owner, who's violating his or her parole agreement? 

The illegal gun owner, whos robbed, or stolen other guns from someone else's property?

Imaginative scenarios not representative statistically on a problematic scale and neither are they really relevant to the response I made. 

Whats your self defined definition of an illegal gun owner, who's owning a gun, and then crimes get committed each day, by a gun owning ex-con, who maybe has an issue with another illegal gun owner? 

I have no self-definition(this doesn't make much sense by the way, with all due respect) in regards to another imaginative scenario that is irrelevant to the overall issue of gun-related violence in the US.

Applesauce

@ZeusAres42

these kinds of threads are rather strange to me.  "gun related crimes" there are a LOT of other violence crimes, like rape for instance, so why shouldn't we be talking about all violent crimes instead of specific ones?  It seems by the topics generally posted, when you focus on specific instances the others are largely ignored.  I'm not sure that's the best way to deal with violent crimes.  There are no violent crimes I want to experience or have my loved ones affected by.  Can't imagine anyone else not feeling the same way.  Attempting to deal with the issue of violence, violent crimes isn't controversial, shouldn't be anyway, perhaps some of the proposed solutions could be, but we really don't have those conversations do we.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

https://thehill-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thehill.com/homenews/news/356867-gorka-black-africans-murdering-each-other-by-the-bushel?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQCCAE=#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://thehill.com/homenews/news/356867-gorka-black-africans-murdering-each-other-by-the-bushel

"Gorka: 'Black Africans' are murdering each other 'by the bushel' "

"Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka said Monday that "black African gun crime" is "our big issue" in the United States.

During an interview on a Sinclair-owned television station, Gorka said the biggest issue the U.S. has is "not mass shootings," which he called an anomaly.

"You do not make legislation out of outliers," he said.

"Our big issue is black African gun crime against black Africans. It is a tragedy," he said."

Gorka then referenced gun crime in Chicago. 

"Go to Chicago. Go to - the city's run by Democrats for 40 years," he said.

"Black young men are murdering each other by the bushel. This is a social issue," Gorka said.

Gorka called for people to let the police do their jobs and "rebuild those societies."

"Legislation will not save lives," he said.

His comments come after the Las Vegas shooting, which marked the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history, renewed calls for gun control."

The gun violence crime in the United States, is an every shade of human skin problem.

"So you're now saying that gun violence in the US is something to do with someone's skin color?"

Non race on race gun violence brutality, and race on race brutality.

"Firstly, if something is non-race it is no longer in existence. 

Secondly, if you mean the same race on the same race, as well as different races, attacking each other then I don't see your point here."

Illegal aliens, or immigrants, have killed innocent U.S. citizens, in various parts of the country.

"All different kinds of people have killed other people regardless of whether they are natives or otherwise."

@ZeusAres42

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer? 

TKDB

@Applesauce

Same questions to you:

Are you maybe trying to make excuses for "guns," in general, by maybe using the Second Amendment, maybe in a sense as its own "gun guard?"

Or are you trying to maybe, rationalize around the gun violence brutalities, waged against, some the public as a whole, by some of the lawful gun owners, and the illegal gun owners, who got their illegal guns, from a illegal gun dealer?