• 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

iacardsfan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 17, 2011
Messages
1,981
Reaction score
806
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.
 
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.
 
No. I don't care about the element of utility when condemning sacrificing liberty for security. Liberty is a priority.

Now, some folks are more utilitarian, so it doesn't hurt to be able to speak their language, and it helps in this case to note that there is no such utility, no upside to restrictive gun policies, they just render law abiding citizens helpless.
 
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.
anonymous polls are worthless

we could infringe on other rights that would be far more effective in decreasing crime

1) get rid of innocent until proven guilty-lots of criminals beat the rap because the state cannot prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

2) get rid of the fourth amendment-warrent-we don't need no stinking warrant

3) no Miranda-if the mope confesses he's guilty

4) no lawyers provided for the defendants. -that will make convictions easier

5) racial profiling is permitted


if you want to ruin the constitution, why not do stuff that will actually decrease crime
 
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.

Illinois has, probably, the most Draconian gun laws in the nation. Still, I could easily support doing better. (I sure as hell hope we get concealed carry, so that's not what I'm talking about.)

I just renewed my FOID card. They'll do a background check and issue a new license...I'll be good to go for ten years. Ten years! No. I think every gun someone owns should be registered. I think background checks should be done a minimum of once a year.

If you've had a permanent restraining order placed on you? You should immediately lose your FOID. If you've been jailed for a violent offense? Immediate suspension. I could think of a whole list of things that should infringe upon your right to own and/or carry a firearm. Conviction of road rage would be another example.

I don't think our government is going to come around collecting our guns for the hell of it and am not afraid our government is going to suddenly go bananas. If it did? Our little piddly arsenals would mean nothing anyway.
 
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.


First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.

I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.
 
anonymous polls are worthless

we could infringe on other rights that would be far more effective in decreasing crime

1) get rid of innocent until proven guilty-lots of criminals beat the rap because the state cannot prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

2) get rid of the fourth amendment-warrent-we don't need no stinking warrant

3) no Miranda-if the mope confesses he's guilty

4) no lawyers provided for the defendants. -that will make convictions easier

5) racial profiling is permitted


if you want to ruin the constitution, why not do stuff that will actually decrease crime

Heck- if we really want to get rid of the violence, we can just get rid of all the crazy people. ;)
 
Heck- if we really want to get rid of the violence, we can just



get rid of all the crazy people. ;)

good idea-starting with some of the people who want a fascist crack down on honest gun owners. there is a saying, those who do not study history end up looking like clowns of DP. such as ignoring the war on drugs and how making stuff totally illegal has only increased crime and violence
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.

I actually agree with that. I would have to see the restriction and be convinced it was reason and really likely to help.
 
Yes. I respect the right to own guns, and i own several but i do believe our control needs to be a little bit more strict.
 
I pretty much agree with this. The problem isn't guns. The problem is mental illness.

I agree. At least Illinois has mental illness as part of its grounds for denial such as the rule is and it does get reported. If we combined that type database with the criminal background check nationally it would be great progress toward stopping some of this stuff. It certainly would have prevented VA Tech.
 
I agree. At least Illinois has mental illness as part of its grounds for denial such as the rule is and it does get reported. If we combined that type database with the criminal background check nationally it would be great progress toward stopping some of this stuff. It certainly would have prevented VA Tech.

And yet a FOID is now good for ten years in Illinois. A lot can happen in one year, much less ten.
 
I have been a life member of the NRA since 1978. It is time for a change. I can live with a total ban on all semi auto rifles with caliber or powder capacity greater than .22 rimfire. The Clinton assault weapon ban did not go nearly far enough to make any appreciable dent in crime. You could still buy a new AR-15, it just eliminated some Chinese SKS from competing with our assault weapons for sale. You could still buy used hi-cap magazines at any gun show. It just didn't go far enough.

Enforcement of existing laws, especially making people serve full sentences for committing a crime while using a firearm, would help.
 
Again: Requiring gun owners to be members (in good standing) of militias, e.g. State Militias, should be necessary.
 
Id vote but you sorta tactlessly tacked on the "IF THEY COULD SAVED LIVES" in the end. Biased poll is biased.
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.

I believe the thread premise is that we are operating under the presumption that we have already been convinced...

IF they had the potential to save lives, etc.

Nevertheless, I stand by my earlier answer, the utility argument does not trump that stripping the property rights and self-defense rights of the general citizenry is not morally justifiable.
 
Actually the Supreme Court has already ruled the 2nd amendment is a personal or individual right just like the many other amendments. It does not require one to be in a militia.

As to the OP would you support more gun proliferation if it was shown that doing so would reduce overall violence, or is controlling our rights the agenda?

Again: Requiring gun owners to be members (in good standing) of militias, e.g. State Militias, should be necessary.
 
Yes. I respect the right to own guns, and i own several but i do believe our control needs to be a little bit more strict.
The only kind of gun-control which had a chance of making a difference in either of the recent shootings, is a requirement to store your guns in a rated safe.

Other than that, no form of gun-control is relevant to recent events.
 
The only kind of gun-control which had a chance of making a difference in either of the recent shootings, is a requirement to store your guns in a rated safe.

Other than that, no form of gun-control is relevant to recent events.

I want a "(Gun) Safe Stimulus Package" :mrgreen:
 
Again: Requiring gun owners to be members (in good standing) of militias, e.g. State Militias, should be necessary.
I have some very good news for you, then:
USC › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

We're already part of the unorganized militia. This is how we can be drafted, because we're already affiliated with the military by default...the state can just 'call us up'. They're not enslaving a free man, they're activating a militiaman. The very purpose of the Selective Service is to record exactly who is in the unorganized militia should they need to be activated.

I've long been of the opinion that a 2-year term or service should be mandatory for everyone upon turning 18, because when you turn 18 you become part of the militia whether you like it or not. This is forced on you like taxes, so IMO just roll with it, use it to your advantage. Even if you choose not to continue to serve in the military, you are still in the militia and so you should have some base-level training to accompany it. You could be summarily deputized during a natural disaster before relief comes. You could be part of a neighborhood watch, etc. These civil duties would be greatly served by basic military training.





*******
Do you have to spam the same post in every single topic about guns?
Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.
 
What a badly worded poll. Of course I would not restrict guns if those guns had the potential to save lives. Somehow, I think you meant the opposite.
 
Yes. I respect the right to own guns, and i own several but i do believe our control needs to be a little bit more strict.
In what way? That's kind of the problem with 'gun control'...people offer the notion but cant identify substance and when the fallacies surface they retreat to "well...we just need more gun control". Hell...we could eliminate drunk driving if we disabled every car in America.

Now...enforcement of existing laws? That's a winner. Mandatory minimums for crimes using a firearm? You bet. While we rush to react to school shootings we ignore that more people died in Chicago this year than died in all of Iraq after the troop withdrawal (as of 30 Oct it was 432 to 424 if I recall correctly). So if we REALLY care about gun deaths, we should absolutely start where they are really happening, right?

I do believe people should be responsible and even liable for their unsecured firearms should they ever be used in a shooting.
 
Back
Top Bottom