• 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
Objective-J said:
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.
Click to expand...

Private sellers will be much more likely to require background checks if guns used in a crime can be traced back to them.
 
Catawba said:
Private sellers will be much more likely to require background checks if guns used in a crime can be traced back to them.
Click to expand...

if the private seller is selling registered guns and if thats where a significant amount of criminals get them?

thats what im asking for, again im not against a very loose registration im asking how you come to the conclusion that it "certainly" will have an substantial effect
 
Objective-J said:
if the private seller is selling registered guns and if thats where a significant amount of criminals get them?

thats what im asking for, again im not against a very loose registration im asking how you come to the conclusion that it "certainly" will have an substantial effect
Click to expand...
A registry wouldn't force a private seller to BGC, Catawba doesn't know what he's talking about. It would force me to inventory what I have and who I sell it to, including addresses and other private info, not the government's business.
 
Objective-J said:
if the private seller is selling registered guns and if thats where a significant amount of criminals get them?

thats what im asking for, again im not against a very loose registration im asking how you come to the conclusion that it "certainly" will have an substantial effect
Click to expand...

"The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation"Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Catawba said:
"The ATF analyzed more than 1,530 trafficking investigations over a two-and-a-half-year period and found gun shows to be the second leading source of illegally diverted guns in the nation"Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

that doesnt tell me anything, if they were "diverted" what would registering do or how would we guarantee they are registered before the show?

also how many of these went on to go into the hands of CRIMINALS like you said or were used in a crime?

your own links says .08% or criminals have admitted to getting guns at a gun show

so what im getting at is that it seems to me you are totally guessing and theres nothing to back up your claim. Im gonna keep reading though
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

There is a fine line between vigilantism and self-defense. You're talking about the former. I'm talking about the latter.
 
TurtleDude said:
repeter said:
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...

They are very clearly dangerous. The entire purpose behind an assault rifle is not to defend yourself, or hunt game; it is to kill people.

If you want to tell me otherwise, I think that maybe you need to learn a little more about the purpose of a military.
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't need firsthand experience, I can refer to analysis, statistics, and other factual sources. Now you tell me, how many times have you shot someone in self-defense?

You're assuming civilians employed in dangerous areas/lines of work have the same rules of engagement as bystanders/observers. You're essentially calling for bystanders to be vigilantes, and I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong country for that buddy.
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Clearly, you've never heard of the words precedent, analogy, or example.
 
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...

Here's the problem with what you said. They are being directed to go into danger, as part of their line of work, right? So they expect to go against some of the worst that society has to offer. I don't think the average citizen does the same thing. Have you pulled many people over this week, and approached their driver side door? None? That's what I thought.

How many drug busts ave you gone on today? None? Yeah, I figured.

Equating the threat against a police officer with the threat against the average citizen is ridiculous.
 
notquiteright said:
I would say your attempt to flip logic on it's ear to argue that decoupling of militia from individual Right to Keep and Bear has no merit. No militia requirement = No need for high cap mags for semi only rifles. What you call feed good might be what the majority of our citizens call common sense and if demanded by those citizens, codified into law and approved by the Supreme Court- then 'feel good' or not it will be the law of the land.

There will be no 'harassment', just enforcement- could say mandatory seatbelt laws are harassment.

Could say alot of things- but you would be incorrect... :peace
Click to expand...

You're trying to make wishful thinking on your part appear to be a done deal or inevitable. It hasn't happened, so step back and take it down a notch.
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Source for your claim? On a side note, people without guns are less likely to be the victim of gun violence than gun owners, according to UPENN
 
repeter said:
Source for your claim? On a side note, people without guns are less likely to be the victim of gun violence than gun owners, according to UPENN
Click to expand...

and DOJ studies suggest that those who fight back are far less likely to be hurt or killed especially if they have a gun than those who act like sheep

most people murdered are criminals and many criminals carry guns-nice try, that study fails

common sense and 30 years of working with law enforcement.
 
repeter said:
Since the purpose of regulating firearms in the US is to serve the common good, I think the studies in the following link serve as indicators of the negative consequences of having such a prevalent firearm culture.

You should look at the link.

StudiesGun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health
Click to expand...

your assumption is crap. the purpose of regulating firearms is to control people whose politics are often contrary to the gun controller

those studies all are run by people who hate guns and work backwards to prove their hatred

what is funny is that several pro gun studies were also authored by intellectually honest gun haters who came to pro gun conclusions

Hemenway is a notorious gun hater whose methodology has been lampooned by other researchers


fail on your part
 
TurtleDude said:
your assumption is crap. the purpose of regulating firearms is to control people whose politics are often contrary to the gun controller

those studies all are run by people who hate guns and work backwards to prove their hatred

what is funny is that several pro gun studies were also authored by intellectually honest gun haters who came to pro gun conclusions

Hemenway is a notorious gun hater whose methodology has been lampooned by other researchers


fail on your part
Click to expand...
One only has to look at the Kleck and Lott studies. Both started with a bias but remained objective as gun haters and completely switched to the pro gun side, I have nothing but respect for those two.
 
American said:
You're trying to make wishful thinking on your part appear to be a done deal or inevitable. It hasn't happened, so step back and take it down a notch.
Click to expand...

Not wishful thinking on my part, my observations based on the flip flopping, wiggle through wormholes rants of the radical 2nd A supporters.

Way too soon to say what is going to happen, so lets all wait and see.

As far as who needs to take it down a notch, you don't read many posts in here do you?

Or is it only the ones you don't agree with you think needs to be taken down a notch-

very ahhhh American... :peace
 
LaMidRighter said:
One only has to look at the Kleck and Lott studies. Both started with a bias but remained objective as gun haters and completely switched to the pro gun side, I have nothing but respect for those two.
Click to expand...

that Harvard Turd is notorious for his anti gun outcome based nonsense. If people knew who funded the crap he spews they might be less likely to give his crap any credibility. Its like that fraud named Saul Cornell who used to be at OSU-a historian whose whining about guns was funded by the Joyce Foundation
 
TurtleDude said:
your assumption is crap. the purpose of regulating firearms is to control people whose politics are often contrary to the gun controller

those studies all are run by people who hate guns and work backwards to prove their hatred

what is funny is that several pro gun studies were also authored by intellectually honest gun haters who came to pro gun conclusions

Hemenway is a notorious gun hater whose methodology has been lampooned by other researchers


fail on your part
Click to expand...


Right......Repeter documents studies and you only offer your biased opinions, and you think you've won the debate.
 
Catawba said:
Right......Repeter documents studies and you only offer your biased opinions, and you think you've won the debate.
Click to expand...

I have won the debate, you anti gun types have not been able to find a single study proving gun bans make anyone safer and I have chicago, DC etc to prove that gun bans are failures

Plus I have my guns and if the SHTF, I will be able to do what i want and people like you won't be in any position to say otherwise
 
TurtleDude said:
and DOJ studies suggest that those who fight back are far less likely to be hurt or killed especially if they have a gun than those who act like sheep

most people murdered are criminals and many criminals carry guns-nice try, that study fails

common sense and 30 years of working with law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Oh so you have personal experience? Yes, I completely agree with your point now! You say you have so much experience! Why would you possibly lie, distort or exaggerate anything?

It's not like you have a vested interest in this debate right? :doh

Come back when you have a real source, friend.
 
TurtleDude said:
your assumption is crap. the purpose of regulating firearms is to control people whose politics are often contrary to the gun controller

those studies all are run by people who hate guns and work backwards to prove their hatred

what is funny is that several pro gun studies were also authored by intellectually honest gun haters who came to pro gun conclusions

Hemenway is a notorious gun hater whose methodology has been lampooned by other researchers


fail on your part
Click to expand...

Okay, let me summarize what you said, just so we're on the same page.

"Oh ****, you have studies and facts backing up your position. Instead of getting my own source that potentially contradicts or refutes your claims, I'll dismiss everything you said! Then, I'll make some general comments on how I don't like what you posted, and feel satisfied at my effective rebuttal, despite completely ignoring any and all arguments you presented."

Is that what you're going for? Because that's pretty much what you said.

If it's all the same, I think I'll start doing the same. It's easier than what I'm doing :roll:
 
repeter said:
Oh so you have personal experience? Yes, I completely agree with your point now! You say you have so much experience! Why would you possibly lie, distort or exaggerate anything?

It's not like you have a vested interest in this debate right? :doh

Come back when you have a real source, friend.
Click to expand...

I have read hundreds of studies. I have been at this for almost 35 years, professionally since the early 1980s. If gun bans were effective, the anti gun idiots would actually cite them

the fact that the anti gun idiots talk about ENGLAND etc proves I am right

and what you have done is google studies that support your agenda without actually studying those studies and reading the criticism of them

its like the clowns who cite the infamous Kellerman study (if you have a gun in your home you are 6x times or so forth to be shot) well guess what kellerman's study would include cases where a disarmed home was invaded by ARMED robbers who shot people-that home was called a home with a firearm (duh no guns means no shootings -but all gun laws do is disarm honest people)

then we have that idiotic study claiming few massacres are stopped by armed citizens. that is because that idiotic study only included massacres where lots of people are killed. In cases where there were armed interventionists, there were not ENOUGH innocents killed because the active shooter was whacked or taken prisoner by an armed individual
 
TurtleDude said:
I have won the debate, you anti gun types have not been able to find a single study proving gun bans make anyone safer and I have chicago, DC etc to prove that gun bans are failures
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but I'm pretty damn sure I never said anything about an outright gun ban.

TurtleDude said:
Plus I have my guns and if the SHTF, I will be able to do what i want and people like you won't be in any position to say otherwise
Click to expand...

Good luck with that, friend :2wave:

Tell me when you if you decide to come down from Bull**** Mountain, maybe we can hang out sometime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom