-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
'8 yr old killed self with uzi' necropost thread closed
- Thread starter swine
- Start date
imported post
Hello eye95. I have an opening statement written for my side of the debate. It somewhat addresses your question here, whether open carry legislation (I prefer the term 'legalization' because 'legislation' could go either way, for or against open carry), should be stopped. I, for one, think it should be stopped until this 'unresolved issue' is resolved.
Should I maybe post my opening statement to get the debate rolling?
Hello eye95. I have an opening statement written for my side of the debate. It somewhat addresses your question here, whether open carry legislation (I prefer the term 'legalization' because 'legislation' could go either way, for or against open carry), should be stopped. I, for one, think it should be stopped until this 'unresolved issue' is resolved.
Should I maybe post my opening statement to get the debate rolling?
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
I'd hold off until we have someone designated to debate you. Then we can start a thread just for the debate.
I'd hold off until we have someone designated to debate you. Then we can start a thread just for the debate.
bom1911
Regular Member
imported post
Let's get to it already. Who is going to protect the friggin' children?
Let's get to it already. Who is going to protect the friggin' children?
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
I don't think I am the best person to do this, but if no one else will argue the other side then I'm game. Is there any particular format you wish this to take? Any stipulations?
swine wrote:
Will you be operating under that assumption for your argument? Would this significantly affect your argument either way?
I don't think I am the best person to do this, but if no one else will argue the other side then I'm game. Is there any particular format you wish this to take? Any stipulations?
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
Although I did the research into child statistics and wrote an essay on it I am not sure I am the person for debate. It looks like Swine is a 'masterdebater' andI wouldn't match up to his skills. LOL.
Especially if he brings into it law and constitution I am just a working lay man with some common sense. I found that most laws are based on emotion and not the facts.
Although I did the research into child statistics and wrote an essay on it I am not sure I am the person for debate. It looks like Swine is a 'masterdebater' andI wouldn't match up to his skills. LOL.
Especially if he brings into it law and constitution I am just a working lay man with some common sense. I found that most laws are based on emotion and not the facts.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
Please share your research with our representative. While we want to keep the debate to one poster per side, it would be unreasonable to think that the debaters won't be having side-conversations on and off OCDO.
At the moment, we have one volunteer, mcdonalk.
I still think the question is overbroad and vague. A clear and concise statement of position would ensure that both parties clearly understand what is being debated. May I suggest something like, "More restrictive gun laws are needed to protect our children from being accidentally, negligently, or intentionally shot."
Please share your research with our representative. While we want to keep the debate to one poster per side, it would be unreasonable to think that the debaters won't be having side-conversations on and off OCDO.
At the moment, we have one volunteer, mcdonalk.
I still think the question is overbroad and vague. A clear and concise statement of position would ensure that both parties clearly understand what is being debated. May I suggest something like, "More restrictive gun laws are needed to protect our children from being accidentally, negligently, or intentionally shot."
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
PM sent to McDonalk
PM sent to McDonalk
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
Talk about a yawner.
Talk about a yawner.
imported post
The SCOTUS decision doesn't bear on my argument or position. Everyone I know considers the 2d Amendment to be already 'incorporated'. Most people I know also consider the 2d Amendment to be vague, just as the 5th is vague as to self incrimination. But that's another topic altogether.As
As to format and stipulations for the debate, I'm leaving that to eye95. He invited me to debate matters pertaining to the intersection of guns and children and I agreed to debate the 'anti-gun' side of that debate, whatever that means. You would be volunteering to debate the 'pro-gun' side. Let's see what eye95 has to say about where we go from here.
The SCOTUS decision doesn't bear on my argument or position. Everyone I know considers the 2d Amendment to be already 'incorporated'. Most people I know also consider the 2d Amendment to be vague, just as the 5th is vague as to self incrimination. But that's another topic altogether.As
As to format and stipulations for the debate, I'm leaving that to eye95. He invited me to debate matters pertaining to the intersection of guns and children and I agreed to debate the 'anti-gun' side of that debate, whatever that means. You would be volunteering to debate the 'pro-gun' side. Let's see what eye95 has to say about where we go from here.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
swine,
Not that I want to help you or anything, I just want to have a high-quality debate. Please take the high road.
We are close to getting started. Have you considered my suggestion for the question?
swine,
Not that I want to help you or anything, I just want to have a high-quality debate. Please take the high road.
We are close to getting started. Have you considered my suggestion for the question?
imported post
What I want to debate is whether liberalization (I know you guys hate that word) of 'open carry' restrictions (i.e. relaxing the restrictions) increases risks to children (and other's unqualified to carry, BTW).
Your proposed, 'less vague' statement of the issue suggests that existing 'restrictions' or lack thereof poses a risk to children. I wholeheartedly agree with that proposition, but that's not what I want to debate. My concern is with the FURTHER losening of restriction that would take the form of 'open carry'.
AND, by EOD Friday at the latest I will post my 'opening statement' whether or not we haved settled on the contestants and format and stipulations. An opening statement never hurt anyone.
What I want to debate is whether liberalization (I know you guys hate that word) of 'open carry' restrictions (i.e. relaxing the restrictions) increases risks to children (and other's unqualified to carry, BTW).
Your proposed, 'less vague' statement of the issue suggests that existing 'restrictions' or lack thereof poses a risk to children. I wholeheartedly agree with that proposition, but that's not what I want to debate. My concern is with the FURTHER losening of restriction that would take the form of 'open carry'.
AND, by EOD Friday at the latest I will post my 'opening statement' whether or not we haved settled on the contestants and format and stipulations. An opening statement never hurt anyone.
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
OK, how about, "Further relaxation of open carry restrictions increases the risk that children will be negiligently, accidentally, or intentionally shot"?
OK, how about, "Further relaxation of open carry restrictions increases the risk that children will be negiligently, accidentally, or intentionally shot"?
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
swine wrote:
swine wrote:
Could you start another discussion on this one? I'm dying to find out about these new personal defense inventions.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
swine wrote:
There are other libertarians here, too. And, despite what you may have heard, libertarians are not conservative.
swine wrote:
Certainly not. I advocate the liberalization of just about everything.
There are other libertarians here, too. And, despite what you may have heard, libertarians are not conservative.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
swine wrote:
Remember, more children die in swimming pool accidents than die by gunplay.
Defend the premise. What issue arises from the intersection? I fail to see one, unless it is an issue which also needs to be addressed re:swimming pools and other sources of danger.
Edit; Furthermore, even if you've dealt with those issues, your conclusion remains a non-sequitur. What do children have to do with open carry? You've committed a classic fallacy of relevance until you demonstrate a relationship between the one and the other. For, even though some children do indeed die by guns, this in and of itself has nothing whatever to do with the open carry of guns by adults.
I'd point out that no child has ever killed himself or another with a gun which was, at the time, being openly carried by an adult. Usually, such a tragedy occurs with unattended firearms, which notably precludes all actively-carried weapons.
Even if you consider theft, no child is getting my gun out of its retention holster (adult police routinely have a hard time with that).
I'd also point out that any children "killed in the crossfire" (your favorite, albeit incredibly rare, scenario) are undoubtedly killed by firearms which were, prior to their being employed in anger, carried concealed.
So, what do the statistically quite few deaths of children by guns have to do with the very specific sub-issue of open carry?
Articulate the relevance, for I fail to see any.
swine wrote:
Support the premise, for until you do your argument relies on an unsupported premise and a dubious inference. It is thus an unreasonable argument even if its conclusion is correct.
Remember, more children die in swimming pool accidents than die by gunplay.
Defend the premise. What issue arises from the intersection? I fail to see one, unless it is an issue which also needs to be addressed re:swimming pools and other sources of danger.
Edit; Furthermore, even if you've dealt with those issues, your conclusion remains a non-sequitur. What do children have to do with open carry? You've committed a classic fallacy of relevance until you demonstrate a relationship between the one and the other. For, even though some children do indeed die by guns, this in and of itself has nothing whatever to do with the open carry of guns by adults.
I'd point out that no child has ever killed himself or another with a gun which was, at the time, being openly carried by an adult. Usually, such a tragedy occurs with unattended firearms, which notably precludes all actively-carried weapons.
Even if you consider theft, no child is getting my gun out of its retention holster (adult police routinely have a hard time with that).
I'd also point out that any children "killed in the crossfire" (your favorite, albeit incredibly rare, scenario) are undoubtedly killed by firearms which were, prior to their being employed in anger, carried concealed.
So, what do the statistically quite few deaths of children by guns have to do with the very specific sub-issue of open carry?
Articulate the relevance, for I fail to see any.
Brimstone Baritone
Regular Member
imported post
eye95 wrote:
eye95 wrote:
We could go with this, with swine arguing the Affirmative and myself the Negative. I nervously await your opening statement, and will do my best. Should be fun.