• 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!

"You don't need an AR15..."

Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Casper said:
What is ridiculous is proposing a ban on a specific (or is that your goal) firearm, not because it might reduce gun violence but because people need to get used to the idea that their rights can be limited. We know banning the specific type of firearm you suggested would have no effect on crime, because it already was banned and the proof is that it changed nothing. My guess is that your ultimate goal is to ban firearms in general, that means everything except black power muzzle loaders, or are those also too dangerous for "society"? Thankfully many gun owners learned their lesson from the last time bans went into effect and have been purchasing what they feel they need so ban or not they will still be able to retain their rights, meaning few would comply with any registration or bans, laws have no teeth if the People say No, look at prohibition on alcohol and drugs, the same would apply to guns.
Click to expand...

No, the ultimate goal is to have our gun policies look more like other modern democracies where the right to own a gun AND to use it against other citizens has some acceptable limitations. Just because we made something a right a couple hundred years ago when these weapons didn't exist and we didn't have a standing military does not mean that this unrestricted right is still a good idea.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

Crimefree said:
Right there we have the problem of arrogant uncaring oppression at any cost to get what we want. To hell with having any validity we don't care about that and just know guns are the problem and you gun loving people are wrong.

We are really are people who don't give a damn if we endanger your lives because you own guns and therefore don't deserve any consideration.



We gun owners would love to be able to educate you with some irrefutable facts. First gun violence is a gun control coined phrase in order to skew crime reports and statistics more favourably. Then we have a small problem with the intelligence of people who claim guns are responsible for violence and crime. I mean how stupid does one have be to believe that matches start fires, lipstick causes prostitution and penises cause rape? Firearm owners are expected to join you in this lunacy and delusion you live in and then gun control advocates get all bitter bent and twisted when their fallacy and delusion is pointed out.



Yes we are stubborn people who before you endanger our lives and that of our family and friends demand proof of the value of your proposals. Now if you could just direct us to the verifiable proof and repeatable measure that is going to rehabilitate criminals and nuts by removing a few or many firearms. Being meticulous where lives and safety are concerned we would like repeatable working measures that the working principles are explained and understood are proposed. Do yo have any?



Here is your opportunity to explain what you want from firearm owners, more importantly how it will work to achieve the claims and offer assurances it cannot easily be defeated by criminals.

I await your response.
Click to expand...

I already said the only reason these bans are even proposed singularly is because you unreasonable people won't accept comprehensive gun control measures, despite the public support for them. We have to do these things piecemeal because they aren't politically feasible when combined. I wouldn't say banning assault rifles will have NO effect. It will have an effect of some sort, but it'll most likely be negligible. This doesn't mean no benefit exists, just that its not going to be easy to determine with statistics.

As far as the rest of your ridiculous arguments, what makes a gun any different than any other thing we don't allow the public to have? I guess cocaine doesn't get people high, people get themselves high so cocaine should be legal. Bombs don't blow people up, people blow other people up. Everyone gets rocket launchers and C4! Yay! Why can't I have a tank to drive to work or bring a broad sword to school? I mean there shouldn't really be any effort to prevent people from walking around with potential weapons in the public because its the people themselves that are bad! We should just somehow know which people are going to be mass murders or shoot their wives in advance, right? Do you even listen to yourself? You guys on this message board think you win these arguments, but really people just give up because you refuse to acknowledge even the POSSIBILITY of any evidence or argument against your point of view.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

VanceMack said:
There are some 300 million+ guns in the hands of some 120 million law abiding citizens. What exactly do you see as the problem with law abiding citizens, gun ownership, and your "gun culture"?
Click to expand...

Mostly the world leading number of mass shootings and modern democracy leading 11000 yearly murders.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

TurtleDude said:
several fails in that bit of nonsense

1) is the assumption that banning a popular rifle is a step to reducing gun violence that's a lie and its fraudulent to assume that.

2) we should accept broader controls that are worthless in stopping crime?

3) you are proving that you want an incremental gun ban
Click to expand...

1. Semi Auto rifles have more killing potential per second than a hunting rifle or shotgun than a hunting rifle. That is an indisputable fact. Limiting the potential for mass violence is a reasonable measure. It is unlikely to show much statistical improvement because mass violence is such as small part of our over all gun homicide numbers, but that doesn't make it a fraudulent lie. The mass shootings where these weapons were used had a significantly higher casualty rate than other mass shootings.

"Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones's database"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-is-becoming-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice/

2. Yes we should take incremental steps to implement gun control measures because thats how our political system works, even if they are unlikely to show an immediate benefit, because they will help in the long term. You cannot have a rational assessment of the gun violence problem in America vs. the rest of the world and come to any other conclusion than its a problem of gun availability. There is 0 possibility of a governmental run gun confiscation in this country so the only way to combat this issue is to slowly reduce gun ownership levels over the course of decades.

3. I want incremental gun control legislation with much more barriers to access and limits on the size, type, and capacity of the weapons available to the public. Again, similar to most other modern democracies who don't have as much gun violence or mass shootings as us.
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

vash1012 said:
1. Semi Auto rifles have more killing potential per second than a hunting rifle or shotgun than a hunting rifle. That is an indisputable fact. Limiting the potential for mass violence is a reasonable measure. It is unlikely to show much statistical improvement because mass violence is such as small part of our over all gun homicide numbers, but that doesn't make it a fraudulent lie. The mass shootings where these weapons were used had a significantly higher casualty rate than other mass shootings.

"Of the 10 mass shooting incidents with the highest number of casualties — killed AND wounded — in the U.S., seven involved the use of an assault-style rifle, according to Mother Jones's database"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-is-becoming-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice/

2. Yes we should take incremental steps to implement gun control measures because thats how our political system works, even if they are unlikely to show an immediate benefit, because they will help in the long term. You cannot have a rational assessment of the gun violence problem in America vs. the rest of the world and come to any other conclusion than its a problem of gun availability. There is 0 possibility of a governmental run gun confiscation in this country so the only way to combat this issue is to slowly reduce gun ownership levels over the course of decades.

3. I want incremental gun control legislation with much more barriers to access and limits on the size, type, and capacity of the weapons available to the public. Again, similar to most other modern democracies who don't have as much gun violence or mass shootings as us.
Click to expand...

any firearm civilian police have access to, other civilians should be able to freely buy, legally use and posses in their homes. Gun banners are invariable liberals who use gun bans and the creeping crud of harassing anti gun owner legislation as a way to punish those who don't buy into their leftwing agenda.

I bet big bucks you will-if you are able to do so-vote for Hillary in the upcoming election
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

vash1012 said:
Mostly the world leading number of mass shootings and modern democracy leading 11000 yearly murders.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of which are criminals who cannot legally own guns killing other criminals. the 2000 or so that remain often involve people who don't have criminal records because juvenile felony level offenses are sealed. the chances of a person with a clean record killing someone illegally with a firearm is insignificant statistically
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

vash1012 said:
No, the ultimate goal is to have our gun policies look more like other modern democracies where the right to own a gun AND to use it against other citizens has some acceptable limitations. Just because we made something a right a couple hundred years ago when these weapons didn't exist and we didn't have a standing military does not mean that this unrestricted right is still a good idea.
Click to expand...

Can you name a specific modern democracy where their laws are what you would like implemented here?
 
Re: "You don't need an AR15..."

vash1012 said:
Mostly the world leading number of mass shootings and modern democracy leading 11000 yearly murders.
Click to expand...

There is an average of 2 mass shootings annually. And the bulk of those 11000 murders are committed by gang bangers and assorted thugs in liberal strongholds with strong anti gun laws already in place. I wonder if you have the capacity to recognize how stupid you sound.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom