• 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.

cthomp

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
158
Reaction score
27
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
What do you think about gun control? Poll speaks for its self.
 
One problem with the poll is States like Arizona is an open carry State. it is also legal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit (with some limits).
 
In Arizona it's let everyone have a gun. I don't recall, have we had any problems here?
 
I think guns are like a lot things, like marijuana, alcohol etc, is that when you make laws to ban them, it only puts the control of them in the hands of criminals. I don't think people on probation, or violent felons should be allowed to purchase or own guns, but other than that just leave it alone.
 
What do you think about gun control? Poll speaks for its self.


gun+control.jpg
 
It depends on the situation, lets not pretend that the world is so simple that "this works the same everywhere all the time" is reality... unless we are talking about gravity.
 
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed…Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

—Patrick Henry—​
 
Wisconsin just passed its open carry law and we've already seen one instance where vigilante justice was carried out in a grocery store. In a nutshell, two robbers entered the store, one was armed and the other was not. A man carrying a gun shot the armed robber and stopped it from happening.

Now don't get me wrong, hooray for the trigger happy customer. However, lets say he missed and shot the innocent bystander behind the robber. I know its a serious stretch here, but he WAS in a grocery opening fire. I just don't get the whole argument that "the more guns the better" (hocks a loogey ina spitoon)
 
Wisconsin just passed its open carry law and we've already seen one instance where vigilante justice was carried out in a grocery store. In a nutshell, two robbers entered the store, one was armed and the other was not. A man carrying a gun shot the armed robber and stopped it from happening.

That's self defense, not vigilantism, because the armed customer was not carrying out a punishment, but stopping a crime in progress. There's a very big significant difference there.

Now don't get me wrong, hooray for the trigger happy customer.

Nothing "trigger happy" about controlled and lawful use of any firearm.

However, lets say he missed and shot the innocent bystander behind the robber.

The state would investigate his actions and he would very likely be sued civilly. Whether or not he would actualy be convicted of anything is highly circumstantial and fact-dependent.

I know its a serious stretch here, but he WAS in a grocery opening fire.

It's not much of a stretch, actually. One has to be aware of their target's background.

I just don't get the whole argument that "the more guns the better" (hocks a loogey ina spitoon)

Ahh, I can help you with that:
Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.
Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack

Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009


article-1196941-015B644E00001005-992_468x309.jpg


In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:


  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.


But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax. In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.


********************


EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES


More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.


<snip>

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**


The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population)
.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

~snip~

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~snip~

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted in, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own one. That doesn't mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can ave the tank and the tank only.

You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.


Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Wisconsin just passed its open carry law and we've already seen one instance where vigilante justice was carried out in a grocery store. In a nutshell, two robbers entered the store, one was armed and the other was not. A man carrying a gun shot the armed robber and stopped it from happening.

Now don't get me wrong, hooray for the trigger happy customer. However, lets say he missed and shot the innocent bystander behind the robber. I know its a serious stretch here, but he WAS in a grocery opening fire. I just don't get the whole argument that "the more guns the better" (hocks a loogey ina spitoon)

Good for wisconsin. As for the armed robbery, anyone who owns a gun most likely knows how to use it correctly. Be sure of your target and beyond. Again MOST LIKELY. This incident should be an example to future incidents. Im sure the next time someone thinks about armed robbery in wisconsin they'll think twice.
 
What do you think about gun control? Poll speaks for its self.

The poll doesn't really represent my ideas when it comes to gun control.

I think that firearms that are used primarily for hunting and that are difficult to conceal - rifles, shotguns, and other long arms should have rather low restrictions. Handguns, on the other hand, should be regulated locally.
 
Handguns, on the other hand, should be regulated locally.

Because a rape victim won't need the abortion your party wants to provide at tax-payer expence and thuse need to rely on the governement and vote Democrat, if she just shoots the rapist dead.
 
I understand Conservative concerns about the second amendment and what constitutes infringement of those second amendement rights. But in my view while I don't believe within a relatively lose interpertation of the constitution there should be a complete ban on guns I also don't believe that handing out high powered assault rifles like candy to people who probably really shouldn't have them is a great idea either.

Backround checks and mandatory waiting periods are just fine with me and I don't lose any sleep over it.

The second amendement was adopted in 1791 and I don't believe the people at the time who adopted it had this vision in their head of a bunch of hillbillies in a dodge durango with russian made AK-47's thinking they're going to overthrow the government that has Apache helicopters.

Having a gun in ones home is sometimes nessecary yes, and in the future is something I would consider if I lived in an area I believe warranted it. A person who owns a gun in their home, can save their family from a potentially dangerous person who intends grevious harm upon their families.

I know if it was me I'd shoot the son of a bitch without hesitation if he went anywhere near my 7 year old sisters room that's for sure.

But there's also a big distinction I find with people that say that mass gun ownership makes public spaces safer. I don't believe this is entirely true, although in some cases it has been the case. But if you think it is 100% true you should go ask the Somalians what 100% gun ownership looks like.

In World War 2 a study found that only 15-20% of soldiers would actually fire on enemy troops on site, while this number increased during more intense combat situations, it does show that people have an innate hesitation when it comes to killing another human being. People who talk candidly about being able to pull the trigger (me included two passages ago) are like virgins talking about sex in my opinion, and yeah I'm willing to take a shot at myself here.

Most of the time a spree shooter kills themselves, or is killed by law enforcement.

Legally bought guns are used in crimes.

And quite frankly the idea that having mandatory waiting periods and backround checks to buy extremely effective and lethal weapons is a bad idea is simply beyond my comprehension. Yes I understand you can make the case that you don't have to get a backround check to own a knife, or a hatchet, or a gone damn nail file, it's extremely difficult to kill large amounts of people with those weapons. With guns it is not the case, especially with high powered assault rifles.

Making sure that while it's not impossible (because of criminals), we make it has hard as humanly possible for the mentally ill guy breaking into my house trying to rape my sisters to not have a gun, and I do.
 
Most states have only a background check that is done on site when purchasing. In New Jersey it is a pain in the ass. You have to go to the police station, fill out a lengthy form, get finger printed, then wait for a firearms purchasing id to come in the mail that could take up to a month. When purchasing a handgun you do the same thing. I don't understand why a background check on site to make sure the person is clean. I feel that is plenty and no waiting period is necessary.
 
Among all stupid liberal stances, gun control is among the worst. Give everyone, upon a successful background check, a firearm if they want. The truth is that anyone can get a gun if they truly desired, and that gun control only takes guns away from those who would use it responsibly.

The biggest argument for this would be OnWisconsin's story in this thread. He sounds like the guy who supports the ongoings at Virginia Tech.
 
Guns stop alot of crime but don't expect to ever hear about that on the evening news. Years ago my wife was driving home late one night and had a flat. Some guy pulled over and offered to help. She said no thanks my husband will come looking for me soon. He insisted she roll the window down and kept harassing her until she pointed her little 22 pistol in his face. He drove away.
 
We need transparent polls. I'd like to know what idiot voted for no guns at all.
 
I voted to let everyone have a gun, but I need to add qualifiers. Let all legal citizens (civilians who are not incarcerated) buy guys unfettered.
 
What do you think about gun control? Poll speaks for its self.
The constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms without any infringements.So that means every citizen should be allowed to walk into a store and purchase a firearm of their choice and carry this firearm with them where ever they go without any waiting periods,back ground checks,registrations or permits/licenses. Someone who has served their time in prison should have their full rights restored to them once they get of out of prison.If they can't be trusted with their full rights then they shouldn't be let out in the first place.
 

What makes this silly is that the problem with them is not gun control. They have an army and power, dictatorships. So, this red herring really has no place in any gun control debate.
 
I think guns are like a lot things, like marijuana, alcohol etc, is that when you make laws to ban them, it only puts the control of them in the hands of criminals. I don't think people on probation, or violent felons should be allowed to purchase or own guns, but other than that just leave it alone.

I could probably go with the people on probation idea, but if a criminal has paid his debt to society, I think he should regain his right to own firearms. If he is still a violent felon, then he should still be incarcerated.
 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3IPdS-3ELEE/TbBECB1WWuI/AAAAAAAACC8/VrXn1WnvK2U/s1600[/QUOTE]

funny you bring that up, as Hitler did indeed loosen gun-control laws from where they were during the previous Weimar Republic.
 
more crimes are committed with knives than rifles.

therefore, buying a rifle/shotgun should only require a quick if not instant, background check, to make sure you ain't a felon and have the right to own a firearm.

handguns? not unless you have a really good reason
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom