• 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!

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

I agree that we have a cultural issue which is further exacerbated by the easy access to firearms.

Again, easy access to guns is not uniquely American. Gun crime is though. Easy access to guns does not exacerbate gun crime elsewhere. All comparisons validate that it is not the guns.
 
To solve our issues here in the states.. I would like a full ban on firearms period. But, the realist in me understands that this will not occur at least for a very long time. So I would compromise and simply outlaw just about everything with the exception of a low caliber handguns. I would limit the number to 1 per individual and make getting one even more difficult than gaining citizenship. Everyone would be required to go thru extensive gun training as well as backround checks and psychological assessments by at least 3 psychologists. All of which would have to deem the person fit to own a firearm. Then I would hold the licensing authority as well as the psychologists responsible for anyone who slips thru the cracks so that they take their jobs seriously. I would also hold individuals responsible for their weapons if they are found in the hands of someone committing a crime. As far as I am concerned, if a crime is committed with that weapon, the person who supplied that weapon should be given the same punishment as the criminal.

so you want honest people to be disarmed

what will you do to people like me who won't give up our guns
 
Point being, they have guns. But they do not have the gun crime. So it ain't the guns.

Because the guns are given only to those who are conscripted in the militia. Not legal for everyone who just wants a gun. That is why.
 
so you want honest people to be disarmed

what will you do to people like me who won't give up our guns

No, I said I would allow everyone to own a low caliber handgun for personal protection.
 
No, I said I would allow everyone to own a low caliber handgun for personal protection.

but I want to have the same stuff the criminals have and I do

your solution
 
so you want honest people to be disarmed

what will you do to people like me who won't give up our guns

Oh yes, and I forgot. I would put immense manpower into the smuggling of illegal arms. There would be checkpoints, random checks.. We already have these actually to catch drivers under the influence. I would just expand this to not only check for drivers under the influence, but for illegal weapons.
 
Oh yes, and I forgot. I would put immense manpower into the smuggling of illegal arms. There would be checkpoints, random checks.. We already have these actually to catch drivers under the influence. I would just expand this to not only check for drivers under the influence, but for illegal weapons.

OK so you want a fascist state.

I think you are merely trying to bait now

and btw-if you want to ruin the lives of people who owned guns but are now criminals it seems fair that if it comes to that, they make exterminating those who created such a fascist state their first priority

in other words, if you want to have the government oppress, jail and perhaps kill people for merely owning the same guns our tax dollars supply cops with, and that sort of nastiness happens, you have now become a priority target for those who are being oppressed
 
If the criminals don't have a gun, then will you also not have a gun?


are you really so naive to think your idiotic schemes are going to disarm hard core criminals. ever heard of the war on drugs?
 
OK so you want a fascist state.

Fascist state, wait wait.... let me look up the definition of a fascist state...

Fascist state - is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism.[1][2] Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training.[3][4] Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[5] The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[6] Fascism views direct action including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality

I don't see how banning guns is at all related to a fascist state. Please explain the correlation to me because I don't see it based on the definition above. Then we can debate that if you like.


I think you are merely trying to bait now

No sir, I am debating. So far no one has been able to come up with answers to simple questions as to how guns from major manufacturers are ending up in the hands of criminals outside of my conclusion that they are being retrieved from legal owners at some point.

and btw-if you want to ruin the lives of people who owned guns but are now criminals it seems fair that if it comes to that, they make exterminating those who created such a fascist state their first priority

in other words, if you want to have the government oppress, jail and perhaps kill people for merely owning the same guns our tax dollars supply cops with, and that sort of nastiness happens, you have now become a priority target for those who are being oppressed

Did I say we should kill all gun owners.. where did I say this, please point this out to me?
 
are you really so naive to think your idiotic schemes are going to disarm hard core criminals. ever heard of the war on drugs?

Oh lord, here we go again. As I have said a few times already, the war on drugs is a completely different issues with completely different circumstances and would require a completely different strategy than stopping the illegal gun trade.
 
Oh lord, here we go again. As I have said a few times already, the war on drugs is a completely different issues with completely different circumstances and would require a completely different strategy than stopping the illegal gun trade.

yeah its far easier to stop stuff that has no legitimate use and is used up rather than a gun which lasts for a century and is constantly being bought and supplied to cops, military etc

and yes your scheme is moronic and silly

you have no intention in stopping crime, you are just afraid of guns and don't like the politics of gun owners
 
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.

So we should add a war on guns to the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on poverty? Starting with a Constitutional amendment, something like the 18th amendment that made alcohol illegal nationwide. Perhaps you can use the "success" of the war on drugs to see how that would likely work out, if not then see the 21st amendment. Does it not seem strange to you that although nobody legally makes heroine in the US that it, none the less, exists in ready supply and supports a large criminal element? Banning something does not make it disappear, as the prohibition of alcohol proved.
 
yeah its far easier to stop stuff that has no legitimate use and is used up rather than a gun which lasts for a century and is constantly being bought and supplied to cops, military etc

and yes your scheme is moronic and silly

you have no intention in stopping crime, you are just afraid of guns and don't like the politics of gun owners

The cops and the military are the only ones that should own guns. And their should be very very strict use of them by police. Banning guns will not stop crime. I am not an idealist in the thought that banning guns will stop crime. There will still be crime, and there will still be shootings. As you said, you will never be able to completely ban firearms. However, by reducing ease of access, crimes involving firearms will be VASTLY reduced. Just as crime in countries where firearms are banned is VASTLY lower than the US. The availability of guns in the US makes it easy for any criminal to get one, that is the issue.
 
So we should add a war on guns to the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on poverty? Starting with a Constitutional amendment, something like the 18th amendment that made alcohol illegal nationwide. Perhaps you can use the "success" of the war on drugs to see how that would likely work out, if not then see the 21st amendment. Does it not seem strange to you that although nobody legally makes heroine in the US that it, none the less, exists in ready supply and supports a large criminal element? Banning something does not make it disappear, as the prohibition of alcohol proved.

Actually, i think we should decriminalize drugs and fight it with intensive drug rehab. I would still require cops to arrest those who are found with drugs, but instead of sending them to a prison and having that show up as a crime, they would be sentenced to mandatory rehab.
 
The cops and the military are the only ones that should own guns. And their should be very very strict use of them by police. Banning guns will not stop crime. I am not an idealist in the thought that banning guns will stop crime. There will still be crime, and there will still be shootings. As you said, you will never be able to completely ban firearms. However, by reducing ease of access, crimes involving firearms will be VASTLY reduced. Just as crime in countries where firearms are banned is VASTLY lower than the US. The availability of guns in the US makes it easy for any criminal to get one, that is the issue.

should people like you be primary targets if your war on gun ownership commences.

What your posts suggest is that you want an authoritarian state to solve a problem that cannot be solved as you want it to be
 
Because the guns are given only to those who are conscripted in the militia. Not legal for everyone who just wants a gun. That is why.

Look, the guns are out there in Switzerland. They have roughly half the ownership per capita as the US. However, many Americans own multiple guns, so the access to guns is virtually the same. And it is not just Switzerland. And yet you come back with the same silly line over and over.

They are still guns. In households far and wide.
 
Look, the guns are out there in Switzerland. They have roughly half the ownership per capita as the US. However, many Americans own multiple guns, so the access to guns is virtually the same. And it is not just Switzerland. And yet you come back with the same silly line over and over.

They are still guns. In households far and wide.

crime control is only a facade for those who believe as he does
 
Oh lord, here we go again. As I have said a few times already, the war on drugs is a completely different issues with completely different circumstances and would require a completely different strategy than stopping the illegal gun trade.

No. Its virtually the same. 'Because you say so' is not an argument.

Making something illegal will not get it out of the hands of those who do illegal things ! DUH !
 
Look, the guns are out there in Switzerland. They have roughly half the ownership per capita as the US. However, many Americans own multiple guns, so the access to guns is virtually the same. And it is not just Switzerland. And yet you come back with the same silly line over and over.

They are still guns. In households far and wide.

They are strictly controlled by the government, and if they are issued with ammo, I am almost positive they have to account not only for the ammo, but also for the gun. Probably just like the US military does. If a round is fired, then an inventory of the ammo would show that, and they would have to answer for that. They probably also have gun accountability checks. If a gun goes missing, then im sure stiff punishment is given as well as an investigation as to where the gun went.
 
Fascist state, wait wait.... let me look up the definition of a fascist state...



I don't see how banning guns is at all related to a fascist state. Please explain the correlation to me because I don't see it based on the definition above. Then we can debate that if you like.




No sir, I am debating. So far no one has been able to come up with answers to simple questions as to how guns from major manufacturers are ending up in the hands of criminals outside of my conclusion that they are being retrieved from legal owners at some point.



Did I say we should kill all gun owners.. where did I say this, please point this out to me?
Well learn to differentiate between extreme fascism and friendly fascism with a smile. Police/military with guns and general populace disallowed guns is definitely friendly fascism. Just because some dude with a barrett or equivilant hat on isnt ordering the populace to do pushups doenst mean it isnt friendly fascism. Sure maybe the govenrment is in check now. But what if it gets usurped by any means in the future? You want the authorities to have guns but not average Joe?

Fact: Mean spirited kids will pick on declawed cats over clawed ones.
 
No. Its virtually the same. 'Because you say so' is not an argument.

Making something illegal will not get it out of the hands of those who do illegal things ! DUH !

no, it will get it out of the hands of those who own guns legally, that then provide those guns to someone else illegally.
 
Agreed. Like arguing with a brick wall that has its fingers in its ears. :)

got to love these newbie gun haters who think they have some novel argument we haven't seen before. And crime control is the pretext they use to serve as a cover for what really motivates them. they have a grudge against honest gun owners

it might be because they cannot legally own guns

it might be because they are criminals

it might be because they want people dependent on the government

but its not about making us safer
 
no, it will get it out of the hands of those who own guns legally, that then provide those guns to someone else illegally.

the idiotic counter to reality nonsense continues. lets punish legal ownership because someone might get an legal gun and use it illegally
 
Back
Top Bottom