• 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
in defense of one's home larger heavier weapons are more appropriate. when on the streets, a concealed weapon makes more sense unless there is all out insurrection. so when people whine that you don't need an "assault weapon" (whatever that is) they are clueless. first of all they aren't smart enough or able to predict what life/death fight you might be in or the environment. True, I don't "need" an AW (whatever that is) for some tasks. In other cases such as a riot where mobs are trying to loot and pillage, a rifle with a standard military capacity magazine (20-36 rounds) makes lots of sense
 
repeter said:
But for personal defense, you don't need to be lugging around an assault weapon, rocket launcher, or sawed-off shotgun.
Click to expand...

Assault rifle maybe (select fire, can burst or go full-auto), "assault weapon" is a meaningless legal term that used to include my little 22 rifle and by Diane Feinstein's standard now includes any handgun that holds > 10 rounds.

Sawed off shotguns are highly ineffective, and thus pointless to ban as well.

repeter said:
We shouldn't be able to easily overpower police; they should be at a distinct advantage, in terms of firepower.
Click to expand...

Sure we should, they only carry semi auto pistols, maybe a shotgun.
 
TurtleDude said:
what's an assault weapon
Click to expand...

An assault WEAPON is a gun that can take attachments such as a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, etc.

That's pretty broad, and there are a ton of definitions that've flown around. What's your point?
 
TurtleDude said:
in defense of one's home larger heavier weapons are more appropriate.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from. Without any firsthand experience, I'd imagine most criminals would be scared off if you pull the trigger on a pistol in their general direction.

TurtleDude said:
when on the streets, a concealed weapon makes more sense
Click to expand...

With you on that.

TurtleDude said:
unless there is all out insurrection. so when people whine that you don't need an "assault weapon" (whatever that is) they are clueless. first of all they aren't smart enough or able to predict what life/death fight you might be in or the environment. True, I don't "need" an AW (whatever that is) for some tasks. In other cases such as a riot where mobs are trying to loot and pillage, a rifle with a standard military capacity magazine (20-36 rounds) makes lots of sense
Click to expand...

I don't think that the average citizen should be armed to think about that. I can see a person having up to a shotgun in their house, but they shouldn't be armed to fight a war. We live in a stable country, with a decent police force. I don't foresee a nationwide fall to chaos in our future.
 
repeter said:
An assault WEAPON is a gun that can take attachments such as a pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, etc.

That's pretty broad, and there are a ton of definitions that've flown around. What's your point?
Click to expand...


so what makes a Bushmaster with a flash hider and a folding stock more likely to cause mayhem than one without such features?
 
repeter said:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The Supreme Court has stated that the 2nd amendment covers weapons used for self-defense. Some semi-automatic weapons do not fall under that category.
Click to expand...

really? and where in those opinions did the court make that ruling

do you have a clue what dicta is
 
repeter said:
I see where you're coming from. Without any firsthand experience, I'd imagine most criminals would be scared off if you pull the trigger on a pistol in their general direction.



With you on that.



I don't think that the average citizen should be armed to think about that. I can see a person having up to a shotgun in their house, but they shouldn't be armed to fight a war. We live in a stable country, with a decent police force. I don't foresee a nationwide fall to chaos in our future.
Click to expand...

tell me why civilian police departments who have no greater right to shoot a criminal than I do should have "weapons of war" and the rest of us civilians should not
 
BassDrop said:
We need to make sure that law abiding, mentally healthy citizens who are capable of shooting a gun are able to acquire a gun, while on the other hand make it much harder for someone who doesn't meet this criteria to get a gun. We also need to only allow people to legally purchase non semi-auto / auto guns. Because people we don't allow to get guns can get guns illegally, we have to be careful not to restrict the kind of person who follows the three criteria stated above from getting guns because the best way to protect people from a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

Limitting the "good guy" gun to six rounds max (5 with none in the cylinder under the firing pin) is not such a great idea, thus police have largely switched to semi-auto. Another advantage to "good guy" semi-autos is that they are smaller, easier to concealed carry, yet have longer barrels (greater accuracy) for the same overall firearm length.

3.3" barrel semi-auto:

semi_auto.jpg

2" barrel revolver:

revolver-fogueo-niquelado.jpg
 
Lachean said:
"assault weapon" is a meaningless legal term that used to include my little 22 rifle and by Diane Feinstein's standard now includes any handgun that holds > 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

That's my mistake, I meant assault rifle. I actually haven't looked at Feinstein's proposal, but I'd agree that categorizing high-capacity handguns as assault weapons is stupid. Same goes for your rifle.

Lachean said:
Sawed off shotguns are highly ineffective, and thus pointless to ban as well.
They can be concealed, and effectiveness aside, I wouldn't want people to be carrying around shotguns in their coats. I actually don't know the statistics of usage for these weapons, so for now this is a side issue to me.

Sure we should, they only carry semi auto pistols, maybe a shotgun.
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't think the average citizen should exceed that.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
so what makes a Bushmaster with a flash hider and a folding stock more likely to cause mayhem than one without such features?
Click to expand...

Nothing. I don't wholeheartedly agree with the Assault Weapons ban. I don't think that every assault weapon exceeds what one needs for personal protection.
 
repeter said:
That's my mistake, I meant assault rifle. I actually haven't looked at Feinstein's proposal, but I'd agree that categorizing high-capacity handguns as assault weapons is stupid. Same goes for your rifle.

Lachean said:
Sawed off shotguns are highly ineffective, and thus pointless to ban as well.

Yes. I don't think the average citizen should exceed that.
Click to expand...

assault rifles should be freely available to all citizens since

1) they are of common usage

2 are not unusually dangerous

3 and have clear militia use
Click to expand...
 
repeter said:
Nothing. I don't wholeheartedly agree with the Assault Weapons ban. I don't think that every assault weapon exceeds what one needs for personal protection.
Click to expand...

tell me what sort of expertise you have that would allow you to decide what I need for self defense

and tell me-if police agencies have determined that such rifles are ideal for CIVILIAN employees for use in defense against criminals in urban environments it sort of suggests that such rifles are equally useful for other civilians to use against criminals in the same environment under the same rules of engagement
 
repeter said:
Which part? The self-defense portion, or how some semi-automatic weapons don't fall under that category?
Click to expand...

you clearly don't understand the holdings

nor do you understand miller

do you know what DICTA means

were semi auto rifles at issue at Heller or McDonald
 
repeter said:
....

But for personal defense, you don't need to be lugging around an assault weapon, rocket launcher, or sawed-off shotgun. We shouldn't be able to easily overpower police; they should be at a distinct advantage, in terms of firepower.....
Click to expand...

Now let's think about that for a minute; If the cops have figured out that they need to be better armed it's because they know that the threat warrants that additional firepower. If the cops are feeling threatened enough to carry around a long gun in their trunk then doesn't that mean that ALL OF US are subject to that same threat? And if all of us are subject to that threat then shouldn't we all be armed to properly address it?
 
Lutherf said:
Now let's think about that for a minute; If the cops have figured out that they need to be better armed it's because they know that the threat warrants that additional firepower. If the cops are feeling threatened enough to carry around a long gun in their trunk then doesn't that mean that ALL OF US are subject to that same threat? And if all of us are subject to that threat then shouldn't we all be armed to properly address it?
Click to expand...

actually non LEOs are more likely to be attacked. You see cops are well armed, and have radios that can summon backup rather quickly. When cops get into gun fights with bad guys, in many cases the cops are ready for a fight and often instigate the action. Other civilians almost never instigate the conflict but rather its the criminals who attack.

if anything, homeowners who are usually reacting to a home invasion robbery or (like the case of blacks running amok after the rodney king case and terrorizing Korean shop owners) riots, ought to have heavier firepower than the cops who have body armor, the element of surprise and back up on their side
 
BassDrop said:
So your saying a semi auto pistol with 8+ bullets is just as dangerous as a revolver with 6 bullets that takes longer to reload?
Click to expand...
I'm saying you are repeating talking points that have no basis in reality. Some of the most uninformed drivel I've ever heard, BTW, a revolver with a speed load clip can be reloaded in about the same amount of time as a semi-auto, you have NO CLUE what you are talking about.
 
I hope one of the recommendations to come from Biden's group is to require the registration of guns in the same way we require the registration of cars.
 
Catawba said:
I hope one of the recommendations to come from Biden's group is to require the registration of guns in the same way we require the registration of cars.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't see any reason why that can't be required but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I certainly don't see any reason why that can't be required but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure our society has evolved to the point where this could actually pass, but it certainly would cut down on the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals, and provide a way of tracking the guns back to the person that sold guns to criminals.
 
Catawba said:
I'm not sure our society has evolved to the point where this could actually pass, but it certainly would cut down on the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals, and provide a way of tracking the guns back to the person that sold guns to criminals.
Click to expand...
Again with the "evolved" talk. It's not about "societal evolution", what part of it's a right DON'T you understand? I don't have to register a right, and the government has no business knowing what I have, NONE. As a matter of fact the "gun registry" is anything but "societal evolution" it's an old idea that historically leads to bans and confiscations, then they censure citizens. Just realize you have no standing in our constitutional republic.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Again with the "evolved" talk. It's not about "societal evolution", what part of it's a right DON'T you understand? I don't have to register a right, and the government has no business knowing what I have, NONE. As a matter of fact the "gun registry" is anything but "societal evolution" it's an old idea that historically leads to bans and confiscations, then they censure citizens. Just realize you have no standing in our constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

Everytime they talk about progress or evolution, they're talking about an old failed idea.
 
Lachean said:
Everytime they talk about progress or evolution, they're talking about an old failed idea.
Click to expand...
And they don't even realize it. Giving more to the government based upon earnings, and giving a part of property(progressive tax/property tax) goes all the way back to the time of the despots, then to the kings, nothing new. Barring certain arms from "The masses" is an ancient idea, communism and socialism(government control of business) has been practiced in some way for ages before Marx and others put it into theory, nothing new.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Again with the "evolved" talk. It's not about "societal evolution", what part of it's a right DON'T you understand? I don't have to register a right, and the government has no business knowing what I have, NONE. As a matter of fact the "gun registry" is anything but "societal evolution" it's an old idea that historically leads to bans and confiscations, then they censure citizens. Just realize you have no standing in our constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

The cowboy interpretation of the 2nd amendment is what I'm talking about evolving.
 
Catawba said:
I'm not sure our society has evolved to the point where this could actually pass, but it certainly would cut down on the number of guns getting into the hands of criminals, and provide a way of tracking the guns back to the person that sold guns to criminals.
Click to expand...

i personally dont mind a registration so much with very strict guidlines for it but why and how would it "certainly" cut down on guns getting into criminal hands, i think it would have zero impact on that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom