• 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
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

You know what, if you could show me these in the form of articles, PDFS, or something I can read, I'd be happy to take a look at them. Your "experience" isn't verifiable. So, this is what we're going to do. I'm going to wait for you to come back with something I can read, and rebut. You can either provide that. If you don't well, this "debate" is basically me talking to a wall with a sign that says, "No you're wrong! But I can't tell you why, just trust me."

You see what I'm getting at here?
 
You know what, if you could show me these in the form of articles, PDFS, or something I can read, I'd be happy to take a look at them. Your "experience" isn't verifiable. So, this is what we're going to do. I'm going to wait for you to come back with something I can read, and rebut. You can either provide that. If you don't well, this "debate" is basically me talking to a wall with a sign that says, "No you're wrong! But I can't tell you why, just trust me."

You see what I'm getting at here?

I really couldn't care less. I own guns and I know that even IF YOU COULD PROVE restricting my rights would somehow make society safer I reject that because I don't buy into that thinking The burden is heavily upon you not me

you see you only have ONE valid argument for any kind of gun control-that is an increase in public safety and there are no credible studies that support such a conclusion. and EVEN IF THERE WERE, people like me still have numerous OTHER arguments

those being

1) constitutional freedoms are more important than safety in many cases-after all if we got rid of innocent until proven guilty, reasonable bail etc we could increase public safety

2) if we limited car speeds to 25 MPH we'd have almost no fatal wrecks


but we don't
 
I really couldn't care less. I own guns and I know that even IF YOU COULD PROVE restricting my rights would somehow make society safer I reject that because I don't buy into that thinking The burden is heavily upon you not me

I met my burden. You ignored that, and continue to tout your own experiences, which are completely unverifiable, and thus have no place in this debate. Really, this isn't a debate, this is me talking at you, and hoping you'll take your earmuffs off, and listen.

you see you only have ONE valid argument for any kind of gun control-that is an increase in public safety and there are no credible studies that support such a conclusion. and EVEN IF THERE WERE, people like me still have numerous OTHER arguments

Since you like to capitalize things that you think are important, how about this: you have NOT shown ANY of your SOURCES. WHAT ARGUMENTS? We've been discussing for about 3 pages now, and I have to know what your argument is, because you continue to not provide any.

those being

1) constitutional freedoms are more important than safety in many cases-after all if we got rid of innocent until proven guilty, reasonable bail etc we could increase public safety

2) if we limited car speeds to 25 MPH we'd have almost no fatal wrecks

but we don't

1. With one of the primary objectives of the 2nd amendment being protection, you're sadly mistaken, yet again.

2. That's not true, we'd have plenty of fatal wrecks at 25 mph. I don't even know what exactly you're comparing to in terms of gun control because you have yet to make an actual argument, besides that you're full of yourself and your great experience :roll:
 
tell us what laws you want and what good they will do based on empirical evidence

as I noted, I don't have to prove that owning guns will not cause harm-I couldn't care less. My rights should not be infringed because OTHERS misuse guns
 
You know what, if you could show me these in the form of articles, PDFS, or something I can read, I'd be happy to take a look at them. Your "experience" isn't verifiable. So, this is what we're going to do. I'm going to wait for you to come back with something I can read, and rebut. You can either provide that. If you don't well, this "debate" is basically me talking to a wall with a sign that says, "No you're wrong! But I can't tell you why, just trust me."

You see what I'm getting at here?
Being a former gun control nut I thought I'd post this morsel for your perusal. Although this is also an opinion piece of sorts it's a good, logical argument. Sam Harris, the author, is a very well respected (except by theists, they hate him!) scientist in the areas of philosophy and neuroscience and is well published in both these fields. This is not some gun-crazed nut-job by any stretch of the imagination ...

The Riddle of the Gun : Sam Harris


Ed:
BTW - I still don't own any guns and the only one I might consider would be a shortened "granny gun" (a 12ga side-by-side breech loader). Best home defense I know of. But, hey, I live in a neighborhood that includes a lot of police officers. A burglar casing a house/neighborhood wouldn't take the chance, so I feel fairly safe. Besides, I've always got my bastard sword or a ball bat if needed. ;)
 
Last edited:
tell us what laws you want and what good they will do based on empirical evidence

1. The Federal Government mandates that all states with gun homicides above 3.00 per 100,000 are required to decrease the amount of homicides by 15% over the next 7 years. By that requirement, about half of the states in the union will be required to take action. The 15% and 7 years are just numbers; I don't know if that's a reasonable goal, and I'm flexible on what they are. I think sending states a mandate will do a lot of good, and let them look at their particular situation. Ideally, federal agencies would help states meet their goals.

2. All states become shall-issue states for concealed firearms permits. Make it easier for average Joe to get a permit. Concealed weapons in the public do nothing but good, I think you'd agree.

3. Take a look at gun-free zones. I agree, these areas are targets because shooters don't expect to be shot at before they get some of their work done. Schools should not be gun-free. If a gun is carried, especially in a school, I'd think about maybe requiring it to be concealed, and provide state or federal funding for training interested teachers in firearm use. In my opinion, a school should be a bit of a sanctuary from reality, a place for kids to prepare themselves for real life, without having to engage in the worst-of-the-worst. At the same time, we need to defend our kids, and I think this is a better option than placing guards at every school. Heck, maybe require every school have at least a given percentage of teachers trained in firearm use.

4. Increase the amount of background checks on individuals trying to obtain weapons from gun shops. It might not make a large difference, but for those stupid few who try to get guns from a shop, and have a criminal background or history of mental instability, we should be aware of them. I remember the Virginia Tech shooter got a gun from a shop, and the owner remarked that he looked pretty clean-cut. Give gun shop owners the discretion, maybe a mandate to report people who fail background checks (depending on how many former criminals/unstable people try to get weapons).

5. If there's one thing I've learned from researching gun control laws, it's that we don't have conclusive evidence for a nuanced approach. We know outright bans on guns 1. don't work and 2. aren't constitutional, but that's pretty basic, and pretty obvious. I'd like to see a the states conduct research on their specific situations, and see what we get.

6. There are weapons out there that no citizen needs to carry. I heard that in a buy-back program in New York, IIRC, 2 rocket launchers turned up. Now, that is very clearly unnecessary, to most sane people. The extreme right-wing needs to shut up and sit down, because no one's interested in wasting time in taking a bunch of rifles from some hillbillies. On the flip side, I can't stand the "assault weapon" stuff of the left. I think Democrats really need to educate themselves on this subject, and at least learn how to say "sig-sauer."
 
I would support the following:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I'd even consider becoming a milita member if the training was not too tough. I am a vet.
 
Last edited:
Biden carries out his charge to meet with all stakeholders:


Biden to Meet With Gun Advocates, Including N.R.A.

"In a statement Thursday morning, the N.R.A. said it was willing to have discussions about “reasonable proposals and plans,” but would listen to “real Americans all over the country that are hoping the N.R.A. is not going to compromise on any of the principles of the Second Amendment.”

“We’re willing to listen,” the N.R.A. statement said, according to Politico."

"Among those at the meetings on Thursday will be a representative of Walmart, the nation’s largest gun retailer. David Tovar, the vice president for corporate communications at the company, said on Wednesday that the retailer had been “very purposeful about striking the right balance between serving hunters and sportsmen and ensuring that we sell firearms responsibly.”

But a coalition of liberal organizations on Wednesday sent a letter to Walmart’s chief executive asking the company to stop selling assault weapons.

“Assault weapons of all brands and models continue to adorn your shelves, from Sig Sauer M400s to Colt LE6920s,” the letter says. “We know the horrific capacity of these weapons to wreak havoc on our communities because we have witnessed it firsthand. They have no place in our streets and in our homes, and we strongly insist that you honor your 2004 pledge to ensure they have no place in your stores either.”

The groups, including SumOfUs.org, MomsRising, Courage Campaign and Change.org, will present petitions signed by almost 250,000 people, according to a spokesman for the organizations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/politics/biden-to-meet-with-gun-advocates-including-nra.html?_r=0
 
can anyone tell us why the second amendment does not guarantee my right to own the same weapons civilian law enforcement officers use under the same rules of engagement that I am under?

Apparently Biden's meeting was more about pissing and moaning about the second amendment than protecting children

he's an asshole pure and simple
 
can anyone tell us why the second amendment does not guarantee my right to own the same weapons civilian law enforcement officers use under the same rules of engagement that I am under?


If what you said were true, why has no one ever successfully made a legal challenge to the authority of police to carry more powerful weapons than ordinary citizens?
 
If what you said were true, why has no one ever successfully made a legal challenge to the authority of police to carry more powerful weapons than ordinary citizens?

because for most of our history we could own more powerful weapons than the police used. I was carrying a 15 shot 9mm when cops were still carrying 6 shot wheel guns and had a M4 in my trunk when few cops had shotguns

and now we have Heller
 
I said the day after Sandy Hook that no change would be made in any laws regarding firearms because the NRA sets gun policy in this country. Nothing that has been said since that time has made me change my mind. The laws will not change, unless they become even more permissive.
 
I said the day after Sandy Hook that no change would be made in any laws regarding firearms because the NRA sets gun policy in this country. Nothing that has been said since that time has made me change my mind. The laws will not change, unless they become even more permissive.

lets hope you are right-democratic party gun control laws help criminals and killers
 
can anyone tell us why the second amendment does not guarantee my right to own the same weapons civilian law enforcement officers use under the same rules of engagement that I am under?

The second amendment isn't about vigilantism. No one believes you operate under the same ROE.
 
The second amendment isn't about vigilantism. No one believes you operate under the same ROE.

actually we do so stop lying

a cop has no greater right to use deadly force than you or I do

and your reference to vigilantism is both stupid and dishonest

if the purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee that all citizens had the same weapons as the individual military operatives, then clearly police defense weapons are well below that threshold
 
actually we do so stop lying

You presented the point, so prove it. Remember, your experience is a really crappy source.

a cop has no greater right to use deadly force than you or I do

Show me.

and your reference to vigilantism is both stupid and dishonest

Whatever makes you feel happy :roll:

if the purpose of the second amendment was to guarantee that all citizens had the same weapons as the individual military operatives, then clearly police defense weapons are well below that threshold

Was. In a time when weapons were muskets. Then we invented airplanes, tanks and heavy weaponry, the likes of which our Founders couldn't have foreseen. To my knowledge, F-22's, Abrams and Bradleys aren't for sale to the public. We live in a stable country, and to say that the government is oppressive is lunacy, an insult to people being oppressed around the world, and, last but not least, completely idiotic. Clearly, the imperative behind the 2nd amendment has changed.
 
because for most of our history we could own more powerful weapons than the police used. I was carrying a 15 shot 9mm when cops were still carrying 6 shot wheel guns and had a M4 in my trunk when few cops had shotguns

and now we have Heller

So what's stopping you now from making your case to the courts that you feel you should be able to carry the same weapons as police officers. Don't you know any lawyers?
 
Biden: Consensus emerging on gun safety, plans to deliver recommendations to Obama by Tuesday

"Vice President Joe Biden says he will deliver recommendations to President Barack Obama on steps to curb violence by Tuesday.

Biden says a consensus is emerging over proposals such as tightening background checks and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Biden: Consensus emerging on gun safety, plans to deliver recommendations to Obama by Tuesday - The Washington Post

Not quite the infringement on the Second Amendment that the far right has been fear mongering about, now is it?
 
1. The Federal Government mandates that all states with gun homicides above 3.00 per 100,000 are required to decrease the amount of homicides by 15% over the next 7 years. By that requirement, about half of the states in the union will be required to take action. The 15% and 7 years are just numbers; I don't know if that's a reasonable goal, and I'm flexible on what they are. I think sending states a mandate will do a lot of good, and let them look at their particular situation. Ideally, federal agencies would help states meet their goals.

2. All states become shall-issue states for concealed firearms permits. Make it easier for average Joe to get a permit. Concealed weapons in the public do nothing but good, I think you'd agree.

3. Take a look at gun-free zones. I agree, these areas are targets because shooters don't expect to be shot at before they get some of their work done. Schools should not be gun-free. If a gun is carried, especially in a school, I'd think about maybe requiring it to be concealed, and provide state or federal funding for training interested teachers in firearm use. In my opinion, a school should be a bit of a sanctuary from reality, a place for kids to prepare themselves for real life, without having to engage in the worst-of-the-worst. At the same time, we need to defend our kids, and I think this is a better option than placing guards at every school. Heck, maybe require every school have at least a given percentage of teachers trained in firearm use.

4. Increase the amount of background checks on individuals trying to obtain weapons from gun shops. It might not make a large difference, but for those stupid few who try to get guns from a shop, and have a criminal background or history of mental instability, we should be aware of them. I remember the Virginia Tech shooter got a gun from a shop, and the owner remarked that he looked pretty clean-cut. Give gun shop owners the discretion, maybe a mandate to report people who fail background checks (depending on how many former criminals/unstable people try to get weapons).

5. If there's one thing I've learned from researching gun control laws, it's that we don't have conclusive evidence for a nuanced approach. We know outright bans on guns 1. don't work and 2. aren't constitutional, but that's pretty basic, and pretty obvious. I'd like to see a the states conduct research on their specific situations, and see what we get.

6. There are weapons out there that no citizen needs to carry. I heard that in a buy-back program in New York, IIRC, 2 rocket launchers turned up. Now, that is very clearly unnecessary, to most sane people. The extreme right-wing needs to shut up and sit down, because no one's interested in wasting time in taking a bunch of rifles from some hillbillies. On the flip side, I can't stand the "assault weapon" stuff of the left. I think Democrats really need to educate themselves on this subject, and at least learn how to say "sig-sauer."

I think a few changes are in order.

Include high-capacity magazine ban, for rifles. Exclude pistols and handguns from this.

The part about state regulation should be changed a bit. The point of the state-by-state was to let them take care of their situations. But the problem areas are the high density cities. So I think it'd be worthwhile to include language that recommends, perhaps, that certain states look at the situation county by county, or region by region. Obviously, upstate NY doesn't have the same problems as NYC.

Establish a committee of army representatives, and have them draw up a list of rifles that are unneeded for self-defense in one's home. Create special permits for procurement of those weapons, with special requirements for maintenance, storage, and a thorough background check and waiting period.

I don't know if there is a standard issue handgun on a federal level for LEO's, but I'm in favor of issuing more powerful handguns to them.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this set of proposals appeals to both sides. And might actually work.
 
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.

You're right, the problem of gun violence is not guns, but culture.

That totally makes sense. Meanwhile, don't you think it would be a good thing if the bad guys didn't have guns?
 
I think a few changes are in order.

Include high-capacity magazine ban, for rifles. Exclude pistols and handguns from this.

The part about state regulation should be changed a bit. The point of the state-by-state was to let them take care of their situations. But the problem areas are the high density cities. So I think it'd be worthwhile to include language that recommends, perhaps, that certain states look at the situation county by county, or region by region. Obviously, upstate NY doesn't have the same problems as NYC.

Establish a committee of army representatives, and have them draw up a list of rifles that are unneeded for self-defense in one's home. Create special permits for procurement of those weapons, with special requirements for maintenance, storage, and a thorough background check and waiting period.

I don't know if there is a standard issue handgun on a federal level for LEO's, but I'm in favor of issuing more powerful handguns to them.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this set of proposals appeals to both sides. And might actually work.

this is filled with moronic ideas. what would army "experts" know about civilian self defense

we already have expertise-government civilian law enforcement agencies have already determined what are the most suitable weapons for self defense against criminals in a municipal or urban environment

THOSE ARE THE WEAPONS THEY ISSUE THEIR EMPLOYEES

its amazing the amount of silliness that comes from people who are clearly so unlearned about this issue
 
Biden: Consensus emerging on gun safety, plans to deliver recommendations to Obama by Tuesday

"Vice President Joe Biden says he will deliver recommendations to President Barack Obama on steps to curb violence by Tuesday.

Biden says a consensus is emerging over proposals such as tightening background checks and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Biden: Consensus emerging on gun safety, plans to deliver recommendations to Obama by Tuesday - The Washington Post

Not quite the infringement on the Second Amendment that the far right has been fear mongering about, now is it?



banning standard capacity magazines for standard issue civilian police self defense weapons is clearly a violation of the second amendment

and the turd Cuomo has proven that there is no limit short of zero they will stop at
 
And we certainly believe everything they feed us dont we?

do you think those who bray about gun shows know the difference between illegally diverted vs use in a crime?
 
Back
Top Bottom