• 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
lizzie said:
It is as important today, as it was 200 years ago, because it is our constitutional right to own and bear arms. It may not be important to you, in your own culture, but it is a part of American culture.
Click to expand...

Regurgitating, verbatim "it is our constitutional right to bear arms" is important, why? It seems the notion is so ingrained you cannot articulate as to what it actually means.

As I stated earlier, it is not the guns which are the problem. It is the collective psyche of the people making up a society. People who are violent will be violent, regardless of the tools at their disposal.
Click to expand...

Simple question. Do you see any link between violence and guns?

Paul
Click to expand...
 
DVSentinel said:
The previous ban also only banned imported "assault weapons" not American made ones. No Ak-47 knock offs (as far as I know the actual AK-47 from Kalashnikov, made in Russia, was never legally imported to the US for commercial sale, lots of SKSs, AKSs and AKMs, among others but not real AKs ) but lots of AR-15s and knock offs. No Uzi's or HK MP-5's, but hey, lots of Ingram Arms Mac-10s and -11s.
Click to expand...

Yep.. . . . .
 
Boo Radley said:
I quite disagree. The Brady bill was far from a ban, and assault weapons never had a huge following. But there was nothing close to banning all weapons. Congress would never even take up such a notion.
Click to expand...
Connecticut has an AWB in force currently. That didn't stop this murder.
 
gunner said:
Regurgitating, verbatim "it is our constitutional right to bear arms" is important, why? It seems the notion is so ingrained you cannot articulate as to what it actually means.



Simple question. Do you see any link between violence and guns?

Paul
Click to expand...

I've already addressed the questions that you keep repeating. If you are unable to understand me, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's really pretty simple.
 
DVSentinel said:
Well duh. If they weren't stupid enough to use a gun, then they probably wouldn't of been stupid enough to carry out a massacre.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree!

You are using the gun and magazine capacity to say that the attempt or completion of a massacre wouldn't or couldn't occur. Really?
Click to expand...

No, I said what I posted above.

So at around the same time, a nutjob in China didn't attempt something similar with a knife? I think that example alone pretty much disproves any train of thought that guns cause the problem.
Click to expand...

The difference being, in China 22 students were injured. Here, 22 students were killed.
 
gunner said:
Regurgitating, verbatim "it is our constitutional right to bear arms" is important, why? It seems the notion is so ingrained you cannot articulate as to what it actually means.



Simple question. Do you see any link between violence and guns?

Paul
Click to expand...

Out dated or not, it is still the accepted law of the land. As such, it doesn't matter how any of us personally feel about it. Are you arguing for a Constitutional amendment?
 
Removing guns, is like taking all the blunt objects, in the room away from a rotten child, so he does not hurt anyone. It is does not address why he is rotten. The rotten child will just find any way to be abusive.

I heard an interest argument for why the school shootings tend to be casued by young white, straight, males.

In the liberal education system, the indoctrination process has the white straight christian male as the source of all unfairness and evil. Even if you did nothing like that, they have to accept responsibilty for everything in the past that was done to the other demographics At the same time, all the other demographics get special advantages enforced by law. That is a lot of weight to carry, without help, for a young white male.
 
lizzie said:
gunner said:
I've already addressed the questions that you keep repeating. If you are unable to understand me, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's really pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Lizzie, you've addressed nothing. Simply stating 'it's our constitutional right' when followed through really tells us very little. What are you afraid of ? (supposing you carry).

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
We don't seea lot of massares that "result" from guns either.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link to these "massares" of which you speak?
 
Boo Radley said:
Out dated or not, it is still the accepted law of the land. As such, it doesn't matter how any of us personally feel about it. Are you arguing for a Constitutional amendment?
Click to expand...

I am arguing that such adherence to doctrine should be challenged. I would like to receive more insight into such fundamentalist adherence to something that was wrote many hundreds of years ago. As yet, all I seem to get is jingoistic rhetoric.

Paul
 
gunner said:
I am arguing that such adherence to doctrine should be challenged. I would like to receive more insight into such fundamentalist adherence to something that was wrote many hundreds of years ago. As yet, all I seem to get is jingoistic rhetoric.

Paul
Click to expand...
What is it do you suppose that has changed? Do you think that over 200 years the government has deemed itself MORE trustworthy? LESS intrusive into ones personal business? Do you believe that we as a people are less qualified and competent to provide for our selves, our defense? Are there other specifically enumerated int he bill of rights that you feel are quaint and outdated and should thus be eliminated?

Jingoistic rhetoric...do you mean private citizens should NOT have the right to self defense? Private citizens should NOT be included in the US Code definitions of the 'unorganized' militia? That government today is trustworthy, that local and state governments are secure and can be counted on to not only to NOT deny individuals their rights but to protect and defend them from others? If you are advocating for change, the burden of proof lies with you to prove why the constitution and rights deemed so sacred by the founders so as to specifically be listed in the Bill of Rights should now be sacrificed. The Constitution. CAN be changed...and all you would have to do is follow the procedure. Pass the amendment in both the house and senate, find a way for it to not get shot down by the Supreme Court, have the president sign it, and then have 3/4 of the states vote for the passage of said amendment. Should be a simple enough task if you have the justification.
 
Catawba said:
Do you have a link to these "massares" of which you speak?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, playing dumb and acting as a spelling nazi is far easier than coming up with a coherent, intelligent response
 
Zyphlin said:
Yes, I know, playing dumb and acting as a spelling nazi is far easier than coming up with a coherent, intelligent response
Click to expand...

Your grammer nazi comment did not deserve a coherent, intelligent response. You may have better success in getting a coherent, intelligent response, by first making a coherent, intelligent comment.
 
gunner said:
Simple question. Do you see any link between violence and guns?

Paul
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question.

Based on statistics found here it seems that the UK ranks 2nd internationally for assault while the US is 9th.

In total reported crimes the US and UK are numbers 1 and 2 respectively but the US population is roughly 5 times that of the UK which puts crime per capita there at 3 times that of the US.

So tell me, other than with regard to murders, is there a link between guns and crime?
 
gunner said:
I am arguing that such adherence to doctrine should be challenged. I would like to receive more insight into such fundamentalist adherence to something that was wrote many hundreds of years ago. As yet, all I seem to get is jingoistic rhetoric.

Paul
Click to expand...

As a people, we adhere to a lot of things: traditions, religious views, laws. A change, which people often avoid, requires a rationale. And few accept change readily. Just human nature.

Still, this law requires a Constitutional amendment. I would not expect one any time soon.
 
Catawba said:
Glad you agree!



No, I said what I posted above.



The difference being, in China 22 students were injured. Here, 22 students were killed.
Click to expand...
This is a bull**** anti-gun point. Way to use both tragedies for your own ends. The man in china cut off their fingers, ears and noses. You dont think he couldn't have slashed some throats if he had time to remove specific body parts?
 
gunner said:
I am arguing that such adherence to doctrine should be challenged. I would like to receive more insight into such fundamentalist adherence to something that was wrote many hundreds of years ago. As yet, all I seem to get is jingoistic rhetoric.

Paul
Click to expand...


Adherence to the Constitution is what keeps us from a government whose power is potentially limitless. This is something we do not wish.

There is a method for changing the Constitution, the Amendment process. That is the only way to change the right to bear arms, properly. It is difficult and stringent on purpose... anyone who wants to try is welcome to do so, it ain't happening this century.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
This is a bull**** anti-gun point. Way to use both tragedies for your own ends. The man in china cut off their fingers, ears and noses. You dont think he couldn't have slashed some throats if he had time to remove specific body parts?
Click to expand...

Show me what country has 10,000 knife killings a year?
 
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...

So do these guns disappear overnight?
I'm really trying to figure out what you think you'll accomplish with some kind of ban?

Also, all guns, except for single shot and tube fed, are capable of accepting high capacity magazines.
You're going to ban every gun capable of accepting these?
 
Catawba said:
Your grammer nazi comment did not deserve a coherent, intelligent response. You may have better success in getting a coherent, intelligent response, by first making a coherent, intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

My comment wasn't dealing with grammar but with your generalized view point. The massacres that occur are not a "result" of guns. The massacres are the result of individuals making the choice to kill people. If you're meaning that Pot isn't used by people who wish to murder people as a means of inflicting death...well, yes, you're correct. Will you next tell us people don't use dumbells as flippers and cloth to pierce skin?

Your entire premise is based off this notion that hey...a certain type of gun is used in some massacres, therefore we need to get rid of that gun. You defend this by throwing the strawman out that Pot isn't used for that purpose (again, no **** sherlock). However, it's not real defense to the notion. Massacres can happen with semi-automatic rifles not being banned...they also can happen WITH semi-automatic rifles banned. They can be carried out with "assault weapons". They can also be carried out without one. Which is why the entire ridiculous notion of focusing on assault weapons or other such non-sense rather than perhaps looking deeper into the potential root issues is idiotic. It's why political driven agenda pushers that enjoy raping these type of tragedies for your own hyper partisan purposes immediately jump into the same hackneyed histrionics...because you know damn well it's not about "assault weapons". That's just one step in your larger goal. Because your same retarded logic that you ignorantly use to reach your current conclusion will just then be attributed to the next thing down the check list that is used. "Hey, assault weapons were banned and the next guy shot the place up with a shotgun. Hey, we need to ban shotguns! If you don't want to ban shotguns you want kids to be killed! The amendments of the constitution I don't like don't matter, to **** if the same logic would **** all over the amendments I like". And on and on. All because this isn't about "massacres" to you...it's about your desire to rape this incident to score points in your pathetic little political games, nothing more.
 
Zyphlin said:
My comment wasn't dealing with grammar but with your generalized view point. The massacres that occur are not a "result" of guns.
Click to expand...

So you have an objection of my incorrect usage of "result" but you bristle when someone points out your incorrect spelling. Got it!


Your entire premise is based off this notion that hey...a certain type of gun is used in some massacres, therefore we need to get rid of that gun.
Click to expand...

Nope, I am pointing out that in most massacres in the US and Mexico, the gun of choice is one that will accept high capacity magazines.
 
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...

So? You asked in a manner that suggested a challenge, as if such a country couldn't be found. This reply clearly indicates that it didn't matter if someone met your challenge and disproved your assumption, you were going to persist on with your hoplophobia no matter what.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom