Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Apr '13 01:55
    Hear the answer from Mr. Colion Noir.

    http://www.youtube.com/mrcolionnoir

    Other question answered:

    What gunshow loophole?

    Other common sense gun knowledge. Listen if you dare.
  2. 14 Apr '13 02:27
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Hear the answer from Mr. Colion Noir.

    http://www.youtube.com/mrcolionnoir

    Other question answered:

    What gunshow loophole?

    Other common sense gun knowledge. Listen if you dare.
    While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about their own life nor the body count of their victims. Even if a concealed carrier kills the psychopath before he can kill multiple people, the psychopath knows that the police are going to search his home and find his journal detailing his plans and self-absorbed ramblings. The media, in turn, will get a hold of those materials and give the psychopath his fleeting moment of fame.

    As for the media, we can't expect them to not report the news about mass shootings. Moreover, we can't pass laws prohibiting the media from reporting about mass shootings because of the First Amendment. Simply put, the media is going to follow the usual script after these horrific shootings whether we like it or not.

    I think the focus should be on mental health. Although I doubt we can stop all mass shootings from happening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
  3. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    14 Apr '13 09:31
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
    You show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.

    Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
  4. 14 Apr '13 09:42
    Originally posted by finnegan
    You show a touching faith in the potency of mental health services. Woody Allen, of course, is a great admirer of psychanalysis for example, and a tribute to its speedy and economical impact.

    Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
    Yes, but one day an evil dictator will take over! Meanwhile, American citizens armed with assault rifles will easily beat the most powerful military force in the world, should an evil dictator take power in America.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    14 Apr '13 10:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yes, but one day an evil dictator will take over! Meanwhile, American citizens armed with assault rifles will easily beat the most powerful military force in the world, should an evil dictator take power in America.
    What if your armed civilians are the force that makes dicatorship possible? That is at least as realistic a scenario as your one! Dictators have some tendency to get substantial support among the population, often by selecting external enemies around which all can unite in anger. Meanwhile, propoganda against the enemy within sorts out the locals nicely - witness McCarthyism.
  6. 14 Apr '13 10:35
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
    nobody is taking it away. it is not a fundamental right like the right to a buthole or freedom. you can bear arms or arm bears if you are bloody fit, mentally and phisically.


    gun control is about, obviously, controlling guns. making sure they don't reach psychopaths. not about banning them. you don't allow a blind man to get a driving license. and each individual wanting to drive must first get a license, after passing an exam and after an instruction course. who in their right mind would make buying a gun easier than getting a driver's license?


    and about banning ar-15, well, we also ban bazookas, c4, nuclear weapons and mustard gas.
  7. 14 Apr '13 12:06
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    While I agree with Mr. Noir that our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be taken away simply because of the wrongful acts of a few psychopaths, I disagree with his argument that conceal carry holders and media self-regulation can stop mass shooters. First, most mass shooters are suicidal maniacs who don't necessarily care about thei ...[text shortened]... ppening, I think he can prevent some from happening by having strong mental health programs.
    I disagree. Mass shooters typically pick a defenseless group of people to pick on. If they are suicidal, they wish to be the ones taking their own lives and not someone else in order to evade potential pain and detention. These people are cowards.

    None of these psychopaths will ever walk into a NRA convention and start shooting.

    As for the media, the only way to have them not report mass murdering is if they are abortion doctors.
  8. 14 Apr '13 16:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    I disagree. Mass shooters typically pick a defenseless group of people to pick on. If they are suicidal, they wish to be the ones taking their own lives and not someone else in order to evade potential pain and detention. These people are cowards.

    None of these psychopaths will ever walk into a NRA convention and start shooting.

    As for the media, the only way to have them not report mass murdering is if they are abortion doctors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner_shootings_and_manhunt
  9. 14 Apr '13 16:59
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    nobody is taking it away. it is not a fundamental right like the right to a buthole or freedom. you can bear arms or arm bears if you are bloody fit, mentally and phisically.


    gun control is about, obviously, controlling guns. making sure they don't reach psychopaths. not about banning them. you don't allow a blind man to get a driving license. and each ...[text shortened]...

    and about banning ar-15, well, we also ban bazookas, c4, nuclear weapons and mustard gas.
    Actually, it is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . That right encompasses firearms that are in common use at the time. The AR-15 is certainly in common use right now; therefore, the legislature cannot ban that firearm.
  10. 14 Apr '13 17:04
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Most countries have a simpler way to reduce gun crime. They reduce guns and take the risk of an evil dictator overcoming the forces of democracy as a result. So far this aproach has been pretty good.
    People are free to move to countries with gun control to their liking.
  11. 14 Apr '13 17:06
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Actually, it is a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. See http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr . That right encompasses firearms that are in common use at the time. The AR-15 is certainly in common use right now; therefore, the legislature cannot ban that firearm.
    Don't get up on your high horse now,
    I am only asking a question and the
    question is this,


    do you not think that the second amendment is outdated
    and needs to be brought up to date with today's modern
    society and today's modern thinking?

    It is unlikely at this stage that you are going to be taken over
    again by the British or any other force which you might regard
    as a tyrannical power or otherwise.

    A civil society should be just that, a civil society with the only arms
    being in the possession of the police or military.

    That or you may as well carry on like you are still living in a time warp
    where you still seem to think that you are Jesse James or Wyatt Earp.
  12. 14 Apr '13 17:30
    Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
    do you not think that the second amendment is outdated
    and needs to be brought up to date with today's modern
    society and today's modern thinking?
    Look, we cannot ignore the plain language of the US Constitution just because we don't like it anymore or because we disagree with it. The Preamble states that the US Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Clearly the Framers felt that the Second Amendment would do just that. And if the US Constitution is outdated in some way, the Framers provided a process by which the States could amend it.
  13. 14 Apr '13 17:59
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    People are free to move to countries with gun control to their liking.
    Now that is the sort of freedom I think should be in a constitution. Sadly, I do not have that freedom, and I don't think most people do.
  14. 14 Apr '13 18:08
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Look, we cannot ignore the plain language of the US Constitution just because we don't like it anymore or because we disagree with it. The Preamble states that the US Constitution was established to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Clearly the Framers felt that the Second Amendment would do just that. And if the US Con ...[text shortened]... ion is outdated in some way, the Framers provided a process by which the States could amend it.
    If Congress passed an amendment to restrict gun ownership, would you support those restrictions?
  15. 14 Apr '13 18:15
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    If Congress passed an amendment to restrict gun ownership, would you support those restrictions?
    No.