• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House to Push Gun Control

Then what is?
A discussion to talk about when a person should be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for evalutation. The AZ shtaooting has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the inability to have mentally unstable people reviewed and flagged. If Loughner was flagged as mentally disabled - even though he lives a fairly normal life, he couldn't have bought the gun.
 
Thats because the one's doing the shooting are locked up I suppose?

Purty much. I mean, you can't control for crimes of passion or insanity, but yes, in general, there is a relatively small percentage of humans who are likely to kill other humans. If you remove them from society, violent crime decreases.

p.s. If we really wanted to stop crimes like this, we'd look at our mental health system and the effects of the well-intended but utterly unhelpful reforms of the 1970s and 80s.
 
A discussion to talk about when a person should be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for evalutation. The AZ shtaooting has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the inability to have mentally unstable people reviewed and flagged. If Loughner was flagged as mentally disabled - even though he lives a fairly normal life, he couldn't have bought the gun.

So him having a gun was not an issue? You realize he would still be sitting in his parents house ranting about the government if he couldn't buy a gun right?
 
A discussion to talk about when a person should be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for evalutation. The AZ shtaooting has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the inability to have mentally unstable people reviewed and flagged. If Loughner was flagged as mentally disabled - even though he lives a fairly normal life, he couldn't have bought the gun.

We had a problem in the past with involuntary admission to the mental wards. We must not go back to that.

Let's not go stupid because of a mass murder. They happen quite frequently and are seldom carried out by the certifiably insane. Just ban the 30 round clips and be done with it. That will at least make the shooter purchase 3 Glock 40s.
 
Why do Conservatives resist any type of gun control in this country. Everytime the issue comes-up they all do the "sky is falling" routine where they think it will be some slippery slope of eradicating gun ownership.

Have you ever heard of baby steps?

For christsake, even Dick Cheney said last week we should do something about high-round clips and keep guns out of crazies hands, and he voted against legislation banning the cop killer bullets and plastic guns.

Oh, and once again, there is only one law regarding mentally unstable gun ownership and they must confess to being crazy at purchase.

Anti-2nd amendment loons have R's next to their names too.
 
A discussion to talk about when a person should be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility for evalutation. The AZ shtaooting has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the inability to have mentally unstable people reviewed and flagged. If Loughner was flagged as mentally disabled - even though he lives a fairly normal life, he couldn't have bought the gun.

Thank you. Exactly what I was thinking, but more eloquently expressed.
 
So you think it is bad to stop mentally imbalanced people from obtaining assault rifles?

I think "Mentally imbalanced" is extremely broad. IF it speaking of people specifically diagnosed with things like schizophrenia? Or could it be used to deny anyone that has some form of mental issues or history of seeing a mental health professional...meaning, perhaps a rape victim having issues with dealing with their assault who was at one point taking medication and seeing a psychiatrist is denied their 2nd amendment rights.

I think "mentally imbalanced" is an extremely BROAD term to be able to make any kind of legitimate statement on.
 
Purty much. I mean, you can't control for crimes of passion or insanity, but yes, in general, there is a relatively small percentage of humans who are likely to kill other humans. If you remove them from society, violent crime decreases.

p.s. If we really wanted to stop crimes like this, we'd look at our mental health system and the effects of the well-intended but utterly unhelpful reforms of the 1970s and 80s.

Makes sense I suppose, but then again we only know someone is a murderer after they kill somebody.
 
Obama will not stop there.

So what? Obama can't any sort of gun control legislation through a Republican dominated senate. He can be as anti-gun as he likes. He has zero tangible power in this area.
 
Makes sense I suppose, but then again we only know someone is a murderer after they kill somebody.

Ok, let me express my bafflement. Conservatives are against legalizing drugs because they can kill people, but guns are ok. Why the pick and choose your instruments of death.
 
Makes sense I suppose, but then again we only know someone is a murderer after they kill somebody.

Not true. Generally speaking, it's a progression to murder, first with assaults, then weapons offenses, and then aggravated assaults and/or robberies involving that firearm. Most murderers had fairly substantial juvenile and adult records before they killed someone, usually with specific types of offenses.

When I worked for the gang unit, the identities of our shooters were never big surprises.
 
Ok, let me express my bafflement. Conservatives are against legalizing drugs because they can kill people, but guns are ok. Why the pick and choose your instruments of death.

Because drugs aren't going to help you much if an armed gunman invades your home. Conservatives understand that cops cannot protect you, cops can only respond to the scene of the crime, usually in time to clean up your remains. Self-protection is a personal responsibility (and right).
 
So what? Obama can't any sort of gun control legislation through a Republican dominated senate. He can be as anti-gun as he likes. He has zero tangible power in this area.

Dominated House. The Senate still has a slight majority in the Senate.
 
No Obama has a history of being anti gun

Got a source for that buddy? A speech or anything that supports such a claim? Even if he were anti-gun personally he would never express those sentiments publicly or in terms of policy.
 
Because drugs aren't going to help you much if an armed gunman invades your home. Conservatives understand that cops cannot protect you, cops can only respond to the scene of the crime, usually in time to clean up your remains. Self-protection is a personal responsibility (and right).

While liberals would argue that the existence of such situations would be drastically decreased if guns weren't as freely proliferated as they are now.
 
Last edited:
Because drugs aren't going to help you much if an armed gunman invades your home. Conservatives understand that cops cannot protect you, cops can only respond to the scene of the crime, usually in time to clean up your remains. Self-protection is a personal responsibility (and right).

I know what you mean. I was at the OK Corral the other day and tried to throw heroin needles at these bandits, didn't work.:3oops:
 
Gun laws will mean people buy guns on the streets and only criminals will have guns. I have guns and a concealed weapons license but I fear Obama will try to take that away. it does not mean he will succeed but it does mean stirring up the issue
 
Back
Top Bottom