• 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
ChrisL said:
Oh really? What was the definition that we agreed to? I really don't remember EVER agreeing with you. :lol:
Click to expand...

Herre it is for you and from you post 303 and many many many after that in which the participants agreed to use that definition

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-31.html

You provided the definition.
You agreed to its use.

Of course, after you came to realize that the only part that actually applied in the historical being discussed was the part you provided labeled as OBSOLETE, you tried to back pedal away from it since it did not conform to the modern NRA party line that you endorse.

But that changes nothing. It still came from you and was agreed upon my you, Federalist, myself and others as the one to use. It was Federalist who challenged me to show that the OBSOLETE definition was applicable in that time period and I then did that. And that seemed to make some folks very unhappy.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Herre it is for you and from you post 303 and many many many after that in which the participants agreed to use that definition

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/139998-abc-nightline-pushing-gun-issue-w-194-a-31.html

You provided the definition.
You agreed to its use.

Of course, after you came to realize that the only part that actually applied in the historical being discussed was the part you provided labeled as OBSOLETE, you tried to back pedal away from it since it did not conform to the modern NRA party line that you endorse.

But that changes nothing. It still came from you and was agreed upon my you, Federalist, myself and others as the one to use. It was Federalist who challenged me to show that the OBSOLETE definition was applicable in that time period and I then did that. And that seemed to make some folks very unhappy.
Click to expand...

Just because you CHOOSE to apply one definition to the word "infringe" and completely ignore the context in which the word is used does not mean you are correct in your interpretation. IMO, to infringe upon someone's rights means to restrict or to otherwise create hardship (whether that be financial or whatever) for citizens to be able to practice their rights.

THAT is what infringe would mean in this context. Now, if you continue to act anal retentive about the definition of the word (which we all know is your way of sidetracking the discussion), then I am not going to address your comments. If you want to have a real conversation about the issue at hand, that would be very nice.
 
Catawba said:
Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders."
Click to expand...

All the more reason we should increase gun training. Gun safety, usage and laws should be a regular part of the the K-12 Curriculum.
 
ChrisL said:
Just because you CHOOSE to apply one definition to the word "infringe" and completely ignore the context in which the word is used does not mean you are correct in your interpretation.
Click to expand...

You gave us a definition which had
1- modern meanings of the word INFRINGED, and
2- the meaning of the word INFRINGED which was labeled as OBSOLETE

The modern definition applies to this period of time. The obsolete definition applies to the time period of the Second Amendments writing.

This is NOT about my interpretation. It is about the definition that you provided for us and the meaning of the term at the time the Amendment was written.
 
Catawba said:
5 cases against 62 does not make A case, and those five only met one of the criteria used in the Mother Earth study.

"There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.
Click to expand...

The point was that the likelihood of *mass* killings is mitigated by an armed citizen taking action.

As for the quoted author's premise, he is assuming that larger numbers of guns have a causal correlation to rising mass shootings, and there is no evidence of that. Correlation does not equal causation.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If its easy as going to a walmart to purchase a weapon.. Then i think it kinda does...
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't it be easy to purchase a tool? Should I have to wait two weeks to buy a shovel or an axe? If my need to defend myself occurs this weekend why should I be compelled to be assaulted or perhaps murdered for some idiotic waiting period?

We have a right to self defense that is independent of the state. The state has no business making it impossible for me to defend myself during a waiting period nor does it have the moral right to make it very difficult for me to do so.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhhh no i dont... Why do you always bring up this petty argument back up?
Click to expand...
Which "petty" argument? Do you mean where I recognize that like most tyrants you want to be unencumbered while wanting restrictions on the rest of us?
 
Catawba said:
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
"America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers."

"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."

More Guns, More Mass Shootings
Click to expand...

Hey Cat? Did that left-leaning article identify how many mass murder spots were designated gun free zones? Did they identify the culpable leftist politicians who pushed through such murderous-enabling legislation? Shouldn't we be seeking our revenge on the politicians who artificially created killing zones for the monsters who walk among us?

Should we began to compile an enemies list with the name and current address of every politician who voted for the killing zones?
 
Last edited:
TheDemSocialist said:
Sure they were you really know how Obama thinks deep down inside right? :roll:
Click to expand...
That was the point behind Fast and Furious. The Obama regime gave weapons to drug gangs in the hopes that they could use the emotional tug of hundreds of Mexican murders to push through more gun bans.

Biden's first statements in January should be how the Obama administration is going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Holder and Obama for their role in providing deadly weapons to Mexican gangs. After the prosecutions are completed then let's talk about disarming other dangerous politicians. Leave the citizens alone.
 
Catawba said:
Try looking up the term per capita. We have more gun homicides per capita than do other rich countries with less guns.
Click to expand...

Wow, those are stunning statistics.....oh, wait.....those comments are unsubstantiated opinions with no substance.
 
lizzie said:
I don't favor more gun control, first because of the 2nd amendment, and its importance, and secondly, because I don't believe it would have any effect on lessening violence in this culture. What we have is a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
Click to expand...
True, we do have cultural problems and with this in mind, we must have more gun control...It is so obvious to me anyway...
Now, if we did not have cultural probs, and we had no mass murders, then, of course, we would not have to work on the guns..
I suspect that we have people who would work on cultural probs...
But, how ?????
 
SMTA said:
Wow, those are stunning statistics.....oh, wait.....those comments are unsubstantiated opinions with no substance.
Click to expand...

Even if true, we have far too many homocides.
And with this situation we must take action....
The conservatives, true to form, wish to do nothing, other than making things worse by arming teachers....what next....everybody ???
 
earthworm said:
Even if true, we have far too many homocides.
And with this situation we must take action....
The conservatives, true to form, wish to do nothing, other than making things worse by arming teachers....what next....everybody ???
Click to expand...

People like you and the politicians can stop preaching about gun control until after our troops are back home and the drone wars are ended.
 
earthworm said:
Even if true, we have far too many homocides.
And with this situation we must take action....
The conservatives, true to form, wish to do nothing, other than making things worse by arming teachers....what next....everybody ???
Click to expand...

How exactly would another law stop something that is already illegal? Even if you hypothetically were able to take every gun from every citizen, there would still be murder. There's plenty of sharp objects and heavy blunt objects to do the job. Hell, you could kill someone with your bare hands. Should we cut everybody's hands off?

Directly to the recent shooting at Sandy Hook, he definitely didn't need a gun to carry that out. Look at the people he killed. They were weak and defenseless. He could have done the same with a knife or a baseball bat, it just would've taken longer.
 
earthworm said:
Even if true, we have far too many homocides.
And with this situation we must take action....
The conservatives, true to form, wish to do nothing, other than making things worse by arming teachers....what next....everybody ???
Click to expand...

Do they wish to do nothing? Other than not wanting to restrict peoples right to bear arms, do you have any proof that they want to do nothing?

Do you have evidence that restricting gun rights even has a positive affect? Historical evidence seems to point to the possibility that it has a great negative affect. Do you have any proof that stricter enforcement of existing laws, which has repeatedly been brought up in the past as alternatives to bans, would not have a greater affect than a new ban?

Catawa argues rates in other countries. Ok, they have differing rates. Have they ever had the prevalence of gun ownership that is historical to the US? Even if banning particular guns could be proven to have an affect, the ban is only new sales, what affect is it going to have on the millions of guns already in existence and in the hands of individuals? Do we even know if such a ban would even hold up to scrutiny in the Supreme Court?

I must admit, with all this talk of bans, Obama and the Dems have stimulated at least part of our economy. Wish I owned stock in a gun manufacturer or owned a gun shop. Heck, gun sales is the one part of our economy where American Manufactures still has a strong presence and is booming instead of barely crawling by.
 
lizzie said:
The point was that the likelihood of *mass* killings is mitigated by an armed citizen taking action.

As for the quoted author's premise, he is assuming that larger numbers of guns have a causal correlation to rising mass shootings, and there is no evidence of that. Correlation does not equal causation.
Click to expand...

You have not made that point, and neither have you explained away the facts that countries with more gun have more homicides with guns.
 
Catawba said:
You have not made that point, and neither have you explained away the facts that countries with more gun have more homicides with guns.
Click to expand...

And if we had more swords and grenades we would have more homicides with swords and grenades. You should crusade against automobile accidents, misdiagnosis, drunken accidents leading to death, and malpractice. There are more deaths down those avenues.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
And if we had more swords and grenades we would have more homicides with swords and grenades. You should crusade against automobile accidents, misdiagnosis, drunken accidents leading to death, and malpractice. There are more deaths down those avenues.
Click to expand...

Swords take a little more back bone to kill 20 people than does a lightweight semi-automatic, with a large capacity magazine so you don't have to stop to reload. And you know, I just don't hear of that many mass killings in the US with grenades.

Autos are needed to get to work, assault weapons and high capacity mags are not.
 
What the loons are trying to achieve is the "Coolness" of being against guns. That's how their messiah got the stupid college votes, Obama's cool, anybody that looks like their parents is horrible and to be hated.

The loons want Americans to be OH so terribly afraid of those evil guns, they make such loud noises and they're heavy and only mean people have them. Sob, sob, sob. The loons want us to be a country of airheads that dress up to go see Harry Potter or Batman movies and worship homosexuality. We're all just little children really, please take care of us. Look how quickly, just a few short years, Hollywood went from John Wayne, Lee Marvin, Robert Mitchum to Brokeback Mountain. That is liberal America.

It's pleasant to note that on this thread poll, which is valid as far as this thread goes on a liberal forum, the "No Restrictions" are already twice beyond the margin by which Obama was elected.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
Swords take a little more back bone to kill 20 people than does a lightweight semi-automatic, with a large capacity magazine so you don't have to stop to reload. And you know, I just don't hear of that many mass killings in the US with grenades.

Autos are needed to get to work, assault weapons and high capacity mags are not.
Click to expand...
You never have to reload a sword. And I dunno about the whole "backbone" thingy. Murder is murder.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
You never have to reload a sword. And I dunno about the whole "backbone" thingy. Murder is murder.
Click to expand...

Please share with us the numbers of sword deaths in other rich nations that compare to our gun deaths.
 
earthworm said:
True, we do have cultural problems and with this in mind, we must have more gun control...It is so obvious to me anyway...
Now, if we did not have cultural probs, and we had no mass murders, then, of course, we would not have to work on the guns..
I suspect that we have people who would work on cultural probs...
But, how ?????
Click to expand...

You can't "work on the guns" effectively, because it's not lawful gunowners who are causing the problems. If anything, we need more sober-minded upstanding citizens to be carrying.
 
Catawba said:
You have not made that point, and neither have you explained away the facts that countries with more gun have more homicides with guns.
Click to expand...

Nor have you made your point that high numbers of guns result in more mass murders, and that there is a direct causal relationship. If higher numbers of guns equaled more gun homocides, then homocide rates at gun shows would be phenomenal. It's not the presence of guns, but the culture and psychological makeup of the individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom