• 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!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%
  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%
  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
I counter that is a fallacy of logic. Crying babies do not cause spoiled milk. You have to get a bigger picture than that. As mentioned above... Chicago and DC also have very strict laws and their crime rates are very high.

Ive already discusses D.C. Chicago I guess just doesn't have their **** together like NYC does. too bad for them.
 
Detroit & Buffalo have been decimated by the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas, with NOTHING to replace those jobs.

D.C. has almost ZERO income tax-base. Newark? hell they don't even have a damn Barnes & Nobles.



Thank you for highlighting my point: crime is more about poverty, unemployment, ineffective law, and gangs/drugs than about guns or gun control.
 
Ive already discusses D.C. Chicago I guess just doesn't have their **** together like NYC does. too bad for them.


Yet this doesn't prove gun control has anything to do with NYC's lower crime rates.


Already been over this.... Guiliani's changes in policing were the primary cause for NYC's dramatically lower crime rate... at a cost of pushing the envelope on search and seizure.


One example is not proof. I've given several.
 
I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness..

Instant Background checks take 30 minutes. You do it through a database. I'm not familiar with how it is done exactly, but you can go through your state's database and felons will show up. Now the problem is that if it is fast...it probably won't be a quality check. I think that what needs to be done is a lot of compiling of criminal records into databases. Background checks are multi source checks. So the more centralized information is the better. Speeding up background checks and improving the quality is not just a gun sale priority. Employers need to be able to do this quickly as well...jobs that involve child care, firearms handling, etc.

Fingerprinting is done through the FBI I am pretty sure and that takes time.

Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.

They can track a firearm from first bought to next sold. I am pretty sure it is a crime to not report a firearm being stolen though. I have to go for now...but i will finish this later on today. Remind me.
 
I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness.

My feeling is that if a FULL background check is done at purchase, even if it takes a few days, then that gun belongs to that person and he/she should automatically be allowed to carry either open or concealed.

Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.

You know when storage bins are auctioned off, any firearms found there must be taken to a licensed gun dealer (the auctioneer will do it himself if he sees the weapon) to be registered to the person who bought the bin... same background checks apply. I think that's good. The idea is to track guns, like cars, from owner to owner via serial number. You have to notify the DMV if your automobile is sold or stolen, and when you purchase a car, even a used one. I think guns should be handled the same way.

It is rules like these that make me shudder. What is a FULL background check?

So who would have access to your mental health records? The police? great idea.
 
the problem is that our gun laws are not uniform throughout the whole country. it is their ununiformity that allows folks to buy lots of guns in a pretty safe area, and sell them to criminals in a more dangerous area that has stronger gun laws.

strong gun laws that strictly regulate gun sales, are kinda useless when one can simply buy guns across state-lines, and easily bring them over and sell them. we need gun law uniformity.
Yes. That's why I advocate the 2nd Amendment as written. Some basic federal militia rules and the states could add some value. The amount to laws could be reduced by more than 90%.
 
TD, this is a complicated issue. .... My views change. This issue is very fluid..and so are my views on it. Forgive me for not being hard-headed, unable to adjust my views based on new info, sworn to loyalty to my party's platform, unwilling to see things from another perspective.

I make no apologies.
I'm Not going to forgive you. And I rather you not ask for it. From my POV you're doing extremely well, esp. compared to me.
 
folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

Oh really? Then I suppose since I have nothing to hide I should be okay with the state violating my rights? Inconveniencing me whenever they want while acting outside the proper role of government? Stopping cars willy nilly to search them like Joe Arpaio wants? Oh you folks are having dinner/sex/whatever, too bad we're coming in to look through your ****. Not a problem right? Because the only people who would have a problem with state assrape are criminals with something to hide ya know :roll:

What a bull**** argument posed by those who hate how unsafe they are in freedom, and by authoritarians/cops demanding obedience. I have plenty to fear from people who would buy into such a bull**** argument as that, and use it to defend ridding or violating ones rights. We live, or at least used to, in a country with due process and innocence until proven guilty.
 
Last edited:
why in the world would you go to jail in such a situation. if a guy is on your property committing a crime, especially if armed, you have every right to pull on him.
OK, more detail. I arrived home about 3:00 am, caught him on our property. He ran a short distance and jumped in his car an took off lights off. Then I saw what he had done as I was arriving. I followed him, lights off at a sufficient distance that he thought he lost me. He didn't. I pulled up behind him at his apartment complex. Shooting him there wouldn't have worked for me. Not following him wouldn't have solved the problem we were having.
 
waiting periods have no proper use--It has been proven time and time again those only get honest people killed and the "heat of the passion" crap has been dismissed dozens of times

I didn't say anything about waiting periods? Just background checks to get the gun, and proof that you know the basics of firearm safety if you're going to carry it in public.
 
Oh really? Then I suppose since I have nothing to hide I should be okay with the state violating my rights? Inconveniencing me whenever they want while acting outside the proper role of government? Stopping cars willy nilly to search them like Joe Arpaio wants? Oh you folks are having dinner/sex/whatever, too bad we're coming in to look through your ****. Not a problem right? Because the only people who would have a problem with state assrape are criminals with something to hide ya know :roll:

What a bull**** argument posed by those who hate how unsafe they are in freedom, and by authoritarians/cops demanding obedience. I have plenty to fear from people who would buy into such a bull**** argument as that, and use it to defend ridding or violating ones rights. We live, or at least used to, in a country with due process and innocence until proven guilty.
Any officer that would comply with an illegal search doesn't deserve to walk out of that situation. More than that, the person that issues such a command should be legally responsible for any death or injury including murder charges, negligent homicide, burglary, and anything else that happens.
 
I've been mostly reading in this discussion rather than posting. As I look at the poll I notice that very few people voted for no guns at all. I have to ask why?
 
I've been mostly reading in this discussion rather than posting. As I look at the poll I notice that very few people voted for no guns at all. I have to ask why?

I think it's something to do with cold, dead hands.
 
I've been mostly reading in this discussion rather than posting. As I look at the poll I notice that very few people voted for no guns at all. I have to ask why?
1. We can't get there from here, i.e. how do you retrieve them all.
2. They have many sporting uses that are nontrivial.
3. They work for personal protection if you are trained etc.
4. They are allowed by our culture and basic law, the 2nd Amendment essentially put a limit on their use, be a member of a Militia, but that's it.
5. You'll make a huge number of non criminals into criminals.
6. You'll put a huge number of people out of work.
If I think about a bit more I could come up with more reasons, but I bet I'll get some help.
 
1. We can't get there from here, i.e. how do you retrieve them all.
2. They have many sporting uses that are nontrivial.
3. They work for personal protection if you are trained etc.
4. They are allowed by our culture and basic law, the 2nd Amendment essentially put a limit on their use, be a member of a Militia, but that's it.
5. You'll make a huge number of non criminals into criminals.
6. You'll put a huge number of people out of work.
If I think about a bit more I could come up with more reasons, but I bet I'll get some help.

I understand why there should be guns. What I don't understand is why someone would vote to have no guns at all.
 
I think shotguns, some rifles, and a few pistols only need a quick check. Semi-automatics (incl revolvers) need a background check. Basically, if you want to take more than two or three shots at once you should be checked out.

I understand why there should be guns. What I don't understand is why someone would vote to have no guns at all.
I would suggest fear - but it could be they take this poll as meaning handguns as opposed to all guns.
 
Last edited:
I

Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.

You know when storage bins are auctioned off, any firearms found there must be taken to a licensed gun dealer (the auctioneer will do it himself if he sees the weapon) to be registered to the person who bought the bin... same background checks apply. I think that's good. The idea is to track guns, like cars, from owner to owner via serial number. You have to notify the DMV if your automobile is sold or stolen, and when you purchase a car, even a used one. I think guns should be handled the same way.

The problem is that firearms are not automobiles. They are a right and do not fall under the same category as a vehicle. Not to mention...private sale and registration with dealers will never affect the illegal dealers, and registered firearms will be stolen anyway.
 
I think shotguns, some rifles, and a few pistols only need a quick check. Semi-automatics (incl revolvers) need a background check. Basically, if you want to take more than two or three shots at once you should be checked out.

I would suggest fear - but it could be they take this poll as meaning handguns as opposed to all guns.

A revolver is not a semi-automatic. I don't think it matters how many shots you want to take. The less bullets you plan on expending the more dangerous I think you are going to be anyway....to yourself or others. Always watch out for the guy who says...can I buy A bullet. Or can I buy 2 bullets? And if he says 3 bullets...it is probably for that guy that his wife cheated with.
 
The problem is that firearms are not automobiles. They are a right and do not fall under the same category as a vehicle. Not to mention...private sale and registration with dealers will never affect the illegal dealers, and registered firearms will be stolen anyway.

Maybe. But the reason for the right is largely obsolete. While I have no problem with hunters have weapons, or people in dangerous situations ahving them, I am bothered by the mythical reverence we give guns in this country.
 
Maybe. But the reason for the right is largely obsolete. While I have no problem with hunters have weapons, or people in dangerous situations ahving them, I am bothered by the mythical reverence we give guns in this country.

What do you mean by give guns?
 
such a strategy appears to only work, if we have armed border police, searching all migrants, along our state borders.

honestly, if I was Governor I would instruct the State Police to search EVERY car that comes to NYC from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas.

folks who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.

No surprise, you hate the Fourth Amendment as much as you hate the Second.

As I said elsewhere, advice from you about fighting tyranny is like advice from a fox on how to secure a henhouse.


NYC has its **** together, and has for quite a while now.

Assuming that the asterisked-out word is what I suppose it to be (a vulgar reference to solid digestive waste), then I think most of us can agree that it is entirely appropriate to use that word in describing NYC, and has been for quite some time now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom