• 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
That has no relationship to the discussion. The problem is illegally obtained and owned weapons. It doesn't matter what the law-abiding own. I could own a full auto machine gun, and you would not be in any more danger than you are right now, nor would anyone else. I'm not criminally-minded.

I'm not sure the criminal is who we have to worry about. The mentally ill and stupid seem far more dangerous to me. Just saying. . . .
 
Oh, show me what rich country has now surpassed numbers of gun homicides in the US?

Not that I expect you to really get any use from this study, but it's a good look at the realtionship between gun ownership and violence in countries around the world. It's lengthy (40+ pages), but I'll include a few excerpts.

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
(b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.
While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other
developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France,
Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed
nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example,
Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
higher than Germany in 2002.9
The same pattern appears when comparisons of violence to
gun ownership are made within nations. Indeed, “data on firearms
ownership by constabulary area in England,” like data
from the United States, show “a negative correlation,”10 that is,
“where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest,
and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”
11 Many different data sets from various kinds of sources
are summarized as follows by the leading text:In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents.15 The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies.16
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
 
I'm not sure the criminal is who we have to worry about. The mentally ill and stupid seem far more dangerous to me. Just saying. . . .

If you live in an urban inner-city area, criminals are who you should worry about.
 
I want a "(Gun) Safe Stimulus Package" :mrgreen:

That's right, change tax code to allow a 100% write off of your gun safe, and any gun safety course.
 
Are you trying to say an American can only defend his woman from a rapist if he has an assault weapon on him? You have a very low opinion of American's Sir!
....implying there's such a thing as an assault weapon in the first place....
 
If you live in an urban inner-city area, criminals are who you should worry about.

I've both inner city and rural America. No, criminals can be managed. Stupid and insane less so.
 
Delighted to hear that!

Why? A modest caliber, semi-automatic, easily controlled and concealed handgun is not an "assault weapon", in any normal sense of the term, it is, however, ideal for personal defense.
 
....implying there's such a thing as an assault weapon in the first place....

"Attributes in assault weapon definitions

Attributes previously defined in assault weapon legislation and their purposes
Detachable magazines[citation needed]
Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull.
Folding stocks[citation needed]
Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist.
Bayonet mounts are often on civilian firearms due to the same parts being used on both government and civilian rifles [4]
Flash suppressors shield the shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user.[10]
Threaded barrels mount flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brakes both used for aiding recoil management.
Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle.[citation needed]
A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.[11]
Magazines greater than 10 rounds [4]
Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[5]

Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sorry, I don't see women walking around with assault weapons to defend themselves. You must live in a different neighborhood than I do.

So it is OK with you for American women to carry guns in order to kill those who would harm them?
 
Why? A modest caliber, semi-automatic, easily controlled and concealed handgun is not an "assault weapon", in any normal sense of the term, it is, however, ideal for personal defense.

I can't justify the value of a semi-automatic for personal self defense with so many innocent people killed in this country with semi-automatic weapons with high capacity mags. And its looking like more and more people are feeling that way too.
 
So it is OK with you for American women to carry guns in order to kill those who would harm them?

Sure, just not semi-automatics with high capacity magazines.
 
I want the option.

Serious. If a gang makes a living off of home invasion and robbery they dont go in with just 1 person. It could be 2,3, hell maybe even more than 5. If all of them are armed then a full auto sure would come in handy for defense.
 
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.

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."

More Guns, More Mass Shootings

I think the good doctor is full of ****. He's cherry picking numbers. Remember the recent one in NYC where the guy went to shoot his old boss and the police shot 9 bystanders trying to take the guy down? I do a fair big of shooting, I have only met 2 LEOs I would consider good shots. Suggesting that LEOs are better shots than civilians suggests that they practice more. That is simply not a safe assessment. Even members of the military I've talked to complain that they lack the access to ammunition to be able to shoot enough to be proficient.

Meanwhile, while the Obama administration is in a hurry to make us all safer by enacting new gun laws,

Brownells sells 3.5 years' worth of magazines in 36 hours


Way to go guys. What was your intent again? You wanted to limit access to high capacity magazines, right? Well congratulations! You have just caused the number of high capacity magazines in civilian hands to multiply exponentially. That would be like Obama making a speech about how we need to increase the number of people on food stamps and in the next 2 days hundreds of thousands of people drop dead from starvation. I keep in touch with the owners of the local gun shops (they are friends of mine) there is not a single "assault rifle" to be had in the area, they have all sold. The ammo case at the local WalMart is barren, sold out. Gun prices on sites like GunBroker.com have gone up over 30%. There are a few models I watch to see how they are trending, it seems to be the semiauto rifles that have gone up the most. I am so inspired that I am listing one of my custom 22s this week, it will likely bring me a few hundred dollars more than it would have a month ago. It's a seller's market baby, and we are making the money while we can. Thanks Obama, you ignorant prick. Did you really not see that coming? And if you are that clueless on this, what do you think will happen with his other policies?

BTW, I don't honestly think anything meaningful will come from Joe BiteMe being put in charge of new antigun legislation. First, he wouldn't know an "assault rifle" if you handed him one. Second, within the past week there are more first time gun owners out there than in the last 2 years.

Fail

Fail

Fail

We don't need a weapons ban, we need a cure for stupid. And we need to start at the top.
 
Serious. If a gang makes a living off of home invasion and robbery they dont go in with just 1 person. It could be 2,3, hell maybe even more than 5. If all of them are armed then a full auto sure would come in handy for defense.

I recommend using the brain. A good dog or two.



Statistics and various studies show that yes, it might, but they also show that having a gun in the home is also potentially very dangerous, so the net aggregate outcome (and economists have strong armed us into thinking that net aggregate outcomes are the only criteria that are acceptable, bless their pointy heads) of having a gun in the home is that someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion.

But enough about facts, . . . .

Will your gun help you in the case of a home invasion? – Greg Laden's Blog

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.[16] Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

Home invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I can't justify the value of a semi-automatic for personal self defense with so many innocent people killed in this country with semi-automatic weapons with high capacity mags. And its looking like more and more people are feeling that way too.

Nobody is asking you to "justify the value" of their choice in personal defense weapons, nor are they asking you to accept gun crime. But you must get it through your head that one is a Constitutional right while the other is a crime that deserves a stiff sentence.

Recreational drugs are banned in every state and by federal law yet they are available 24/7/365 and largely responsible for much of the gang/criminal violence that you so detest, yet liberals are doing their best to ignore that fact. Banning things, that are in demand, does not make them "go away" it simply transfers the marketing and control from gov't to criminal elements. Look at the success of the AWB in Mexico for a nearby example.
 
I recommend using the brain. A good dog or two.



Statistics and various studies show that yes, it might, but they also show that having a gun in the home is also potentially very dangerous, so the net aggregate outcome (and economists have strong armed us into thinking that net aggregate outcomes are the only criteria that are acceptable, bless their pointy heads) of having a gun in the home is that someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion.

But enough about facts, . . . .

Will your gun help you in the case of a home invasion? – Greg Laden's Blog

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.[16] Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

Home invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ya man.... everyone knows that dogs are made of Teflon.
 
Ya man.... everyone knows that dogs are made of Teflon.

Nope. And they don't have to be.

Burglars said they don’t like dogs or alarm systems. 44% said a barking dog would prevent them from breaking into a house or business. Another 56% suggested homeowners get a dog in order to prevent break-ins. The only deterrent that rated higher was “having people around.”

Facts & Tips | Security One |
 
Nope. And they don't have to be.

Burglars said they don’t like dogs or alarm systems. 44% said a barking dog would prevent them from breaking into a house or business. Another 56% suggested homeowners get a dog in order to prevent break-ins. The only deterrent that rated higher was “having people around.”

Facts & Tips | Security One |

Sure thats common sense. But a 5 man invasion would have LOTS of planning. If they know you have something worth taking they would plan around it. From poisoning your dog a day ahead of time, to hitting it with a taser or crossbow, to just shooting the damn thing. Against a 5 man invasion I rather have a full auto or a shotgun shells with wide spread with the dog as extra protection/deterrence/early warning.

44% said a barking dog would prevent them from breaking into a house or business.

What about that other 66%?
 
Sure thats common sense. But a 5 man invasion would have LOTS of planning. If they know you have something worth taking they would plan around it. From poisoning your dog a day ahead of time, to hitting it with a taser or crossbow, to just shooting the damn thing. Against a 5 man invasion I rather have a full auto or a shotgun shells with wide spread with the dog as extra protection/deterrence/early warning.



What about that other 66%?

And that planning would be to pick another house.

The other 66% didn't run into a place with a dog. ;)
 
I recommend using the brain. A good dog or two.



Statistics and various studies show that yes, it might, but they also show that having a gun in the home is also potentially very dangerous, so the net aggregate outcome (and economists have strong armed us into thinking that net aggregate outcomes are the only criteria that are acceptable, bless their pointy heads) of having a gun in the home is that someone in your home is more likely to be shot and possibly killed than that the gun will be used to thwart a home invasion.

But enough about facts, . . . .

Will your gun help you in the case of a home invasion? – Greg Laden's Blog

Few statistics are available on the crime of home invasion as such, because it is not defined as a crime in its own right in most jurisdictions. Statistics about home invasion found on the Internet are often false or misleading.[16] Persons arrested for what the police or media may refer to as "home invasion" are actually charged with crimes such as robbery, kidnapping, homicide, rape, or assault.

Home invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nobody is asserting that you must keep a gun for home/personal defense, yet you seem to assert "knowing better" and wish to impose your "don't do that" beliefs upon others. Some people have definitely used guns to save the loss of life and property, others have had terrible outcomes from domestic violence, suicides or accidents. Each person, must make that personal decision, but also must remain allowed to do so according to our Constitution. Freedom is very closely linked to personal responsibility, desire for an althoritarian form of gov't, aka the nanny state, has not shown sufficient appeal, thus far, to amend our Constitution. Until that time comes, please respect both our freedom and our Constitution and I will respect your personal decision to not keep and bear arms. :)
 
And that planning would be to pick another house.

The other 66% didn't run into a place with a dog. ;)
Actually according to logic wouldn't 66% NOT be deterred by a dog? And 44% would plan another house?
 
Back
Top Bottom