• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
Catawba said:
Glad you agree!
Click to expand...

LOL, obviously you have no clue what I was referring to. If you want to kill large numbers of people, a gun is a very inefficient way of doing it. At Columbine and in other of these shootings, the perps built bombs. Now to kill 20 people close to each other with a gun, you have to aim, fire, re-aim, fire again, twenty times. However, if you take the bombs built by some of these and put a fuse on them, you can easily kill all twenty with only one bomb and probably before they even knew they were in danger.

So, a gun, any gun, when perpetrating any such crime, a gun is a very, very inefficient way to do it, it is stupid to use that method when a more efficient method is available.


Catawba said:
No, I said what I posted above.
Click to expand...

What I got, and probably others, is that the availability of the gun and high capacity magazines were the cause of massacres, not that they determined the lethality of the massacre. And BTW, even low capacity magazines in magazine loaded guns, it takes very little time to swap them out, especially if you train yourself and practice it.


Catawba said:
The difference being, in China 22 students were injured. Here, 22 students were killed.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lethality was different, but the fact that attacks can occur with or without the presence of guns was the point. The gun did not cause the attack, a person did.

I doubt you will get anyone to argue that a knife is more lethal than a gun. Even a well trained knife fighter against a amateur, untrained person with a gun will probably only win 1 out of 10 times and zero times if there is any type of distance to be covered.

As I pointed out above, there are far more lethal means available, just be glad that they weren't used.

And in all of the cases, recent and past, as Demonstrated during the Mall attack in Oregon (were it has been reported there was another armed person there that was not shooting randomly and only endangered the perp), it would of taken only a single armed person to either stop or minimize all these attacks.

Because only the bad guy had a gun, all of these type of attacks were far more lethal and affected far more people because a good guy/gal there didn't have a gun.

I also note that other than trying to take guns away or giving them to everyone and in every place, you had no answer to how to prevent future massacres.
 
Last edited:
DVSentinel said:
Yes, the lethality was different...
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly was! I don't think you would get any argument from the parents of all those innocent kids who will never get to grow up now.
 
Catawba said:
Which is about 1/3 of the 30,000 people that die of gunshot wounds each year in the US!

How many gunshot deaths occur each year in the US
Click to expand...

How many are killed each year through the misuse of automobiles? Both are caused by PEOPLE who misuse an inanimate object and that illegal misuse causes the death of other people.

Yes, guns are purposely designed to kill, but other than defense, the are not licensed, sold or in a lot of cases owned for the purpose of killing people.
 
Catawba said:
Is obvious, injury is preferable to death!
Click to expand...

Indeed, now go on out there and convince every criminal to give up their guns. Once you've accomplished that, you'll have do problem getting the law abiding to disarm.
 
Check this out. If we put a man on the moon, do you guys suppose we could get a way we could download a "Where's my Roscoe" app on our phone that would tell us where our guns are after some criminal element comes and steals them? That worries me the most. I'm not worried about me ever going to the dark side with my guns. But I do worry about them falling into the wrong hands.

Could a tracking device be embedded to where it could not be altered without totally destroying the gun?

I had my house robbed in Texas once. Wayyyy out in the country. Sticks. Boondocks. Now some criminal/burglar and God knows what else, has a gun. Mine.

I wish I could track it. Find him/her. And then I wish there were laws in place to send them straight to the gas chamber. If he sold the gun, he gets the gas and the buyer gets the needle.

That would take a lot of guns outta the criminal elements. Zero tolerance. You get caught doing a gun crime, or a felon with a gun, to the gallows. No parole, no probation, no life. Just GONE. Buh-bye.

We can dream, can't we?
 
Last edited:
Lachean said:
Indeed, now go on out there and convince every criminal to give up their guns. Once you've accomplished that, you'll have do problem getting the law abiding to disarm.
Click to expand...

We need to collect criminals instead. Don't wait for 'em to give up the guns.

We need a rightous tsunami to sweep across our land and take all the scurge and evil from our shores into the bowels of the ocean.
 
Catawba said:
Is obvious, injury is preferable to death!
Click to expand...

You seem to be focused upon the lethality of the attacks, not that they happened, not how to prevent them from happening again.

Gun control is the topic at hand.

Would gun control have stopped the attack from happening, NO.

Would gun control have reduced the lethality of the attacks, Undetermined, but likely not as it is not terribly difficult to get guns illegally. In the case of Columbine, some of the guns used were purchased illegally.

Even without the guns, there is the possibility that other, more lethal means would of been employed. I have shown you that, in fact, without using a gun at all, it could of been much much worse.

So you cannot empirically state that gun control, or even the total elimination of guns, would of either stopped the attacks or reduced the level of violence and death.

I can, without any doubt, state that a single armed determined adult could of stopped or minimized every one of these kinds of attacks and that if there were more than one armed determined adult, the chances of stopping or minimizing such attacks goes up exponentially. I challenge you, or anyone for that matter, to disprove those statements.

I will also state, clearly and emphatically that gun control laws have prevented responsible adults from being armed and stopping/minimizing these kinds of attacks. Go ahead and try to disprove that also.
 
Captain America said:
We need to collect criminals instead. Don't wait for 'em to give up the guns.

We need a rightous tsunami to sweep across our land and take all the scurge and evil from our shores into the bowels of the ocean.
Click to expand...

I consider crime the result of economic, systemic or prohibitive causes that cannot be eliminated entirely. We could kill them all today, and tomorrow more people would turn to crime.
 
It would depend on exactly how restrictive the proposed measures would be on law abiding citizens and how likely they were to save lives. If it was fairly innocuous, and showed the potential to save lives, then I'd probably support it.

Something like instant background checks meet that criteria. They're quick and painless to any law-abiding citizen looking to buy a gun, and they make it at least somewhat harder for criminals to acquire guns.

The problem with most of the suggestions I've heard since the shooting in Connecticut is that they wouldn't be all that effective in saving lives, and they would impact the ability of citizens to own guns too much.
 
Lachean said:
Indeed, now go on out there and convince every criminal to give up their guns. Once you've accomplished that, you'll have do problem getting the law abiding to disarm.
Click to expand...


Banning guns in this country will only come about if more reasonable measures are not enacted to reduce the number of massacres in this country.
 
Captain America said:
Check this out. If we put a man on the moon, do you guys suppose we could get a way we could download a "Where's my Roscoe" app on our phone that would tell us where our guns are after some criminal element comes and steals them? That worries me the most. I'm not worried about me ever going to the dark side with my guns. But I do worry about them falling into the wrong hands.

Could a tracking device be embedded to where it could not be altered without totally destroying the gun?

I had my house robbed in Texas once. Wayyyy out in the country. Sticks. Boondocks. Now some criminal/burglar and God knows what else, has a gun. Mine.

I wish I could track it. Find him/her. And then I wish there were laws in place to send them straight to the gas chamber. If he sold the gun, he gets the gas and the buyer gets the needle.

That would take a lot of guns outta the criminal elements. Zero tolerance. You get caught doing a gun crime, or a felon with a gun, to the gallows. No parole, no probation, no life. Just GONE. Buh-bye.

We can dream, can't we?
Click to expand...

Technology has been developed, where soon, people can make an innumerable amount of firearms (including full automatics) in their homes, without notice from law enforcement officials.
Gun control is going to be largely and completely ineffective in the near to medium term.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Technology has been developed, where soon, people can make an innumerable amount of firearms (including full automatics) in their homes, without notice from law enforcement officials.
Gun control is going to be largely and completely ineffective in the near to medium term.
Click to expand...

Cant wait for every mall to have a automated forging booth that can make thousands of different things from raw materials at cost + a bit of a fee.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Technology has been developed, where soon, people can make an innumerable amount of firearms (including full automatics) in their homes, without notice from law enforcement officials.
Gun control is going to be largely and completely ineffective in the near to medium term.
Click to expand...

I submit, sir, gun control, regardless of future technology, would be futile to even attempt.

I have been following that technology. That is to say, I've seen a few things on television lately with "do it your self" gun building software, etc..
 
Catawba said:
Banning guns in this country will only come about if more reasonable measures are not enacted to reduce the number of massacres in this country.
Click to expand...

Said the person who asked who's rights are being infringed upon...

Keep telling yourself that. You'll see Civil War before you ever see an America without guns.
 
Lachean said:
Said the person who asked who's rights are being infringed upon...

Keep telling yourself that. You'll see Civil War before you ever see an America without guns.
Click to expand...


Now try addressing what I actually said:

"Banning guns in this country will only come about if more reasonable measures are not enacted to reduce the number of massacres in this country."

Responsible gun owners can either help implement measures that will help reduce massacres of innocent people or face broader gun control as our society evolves.
 
Catawba said:
Which is about 1/3 of the 30,000 people that die of gunshot wounds each year in the US!

How many gunshot deaths occur each year in the US
Click to expand...


The majority of gun deaths are in fact suicides. Some are cops killing perps, some are citizens killing perps. They should not be counted when considering homicides.

Gun murders are about 10,000 per year.... same as stabbing deaths....
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
You can get them for your home now.
Currently, the only affordable models make things out of plastic.
Click to expand...
We also have some steel based ones in some malls. They make helmets and other various things. But I digress and shift from topic too much.
 
We've got to focus on the problem, not the symptoms. If you are tired all the time, does it make sense for a doc to prescribe you cafiene pills, or to dig deeper to see what's causing the fatigue? Gun deaths are only a symptom.
 
And we need to do this quickly. We are fast approaching technologies that will be by their very nature accessible to all...fearsome indeed, if used to harm or kill. You're afraid of guns? I'm afraid of the future...
 
Catawba said:
We are talking about reducing massacres of innocent people. In order to believe that banning guns that accept high capacity magazines would have no effect on reducing the massacres, one would have to ignore that the guns available in the US that accept high capacity magazines are the guns of choice for those carrying out massacres in both the US and Mexico.
Click to expand...

any gun that can accept a 10 round magazine can accept a 30 round magazine--you merely demonstrate how little you know about guns and magazines. Those guns are the choice of every major CIVILIAN law enforcement agency as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom