• 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!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

The second amendment hurdle is the big one, but the effects of gun restrictions on a nationwide level is highly debated among those those who have studied it professionally, with the basic belief being that there simply is not enough accurate data to draw real conclusions from.
So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.
I'd also add that most suggestions for stricter gun laws cannot be shown to prevent the acts that they are poroposed in response to.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

well it did in the sense that some people bought Post ban weapons and converted them to Pre ban. this normally involved buying an AR 15 style rifle which was sold without "flash hiders" "bayonet lugs" etc and replacing the top half of the rifle with ones that had those features. the people who wanted normal capacity (15-21 round) pistol magazines are the competition practical shooters where you are scored on TIME as well as accuracy so less reloading of the pistol is an advantage. If you came into the sport after the ban the magazines were extremely (150 dollar rather than 20-30 pre ban) expensive but there were "replacement" kits available meaning if you OWNED a 20 round magazine and it broke you could replace the broken part. Some people broke the law by actually creating new normal capacity magazines
I think you will acknowledge that when we talk about a rise in crime we're not talking about what you wrote. I was referring to a rise in gun crime / violent crime because of the ban on certain weapons and clips.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.

Correct.

I'd also add that most suggestions for stricter gun laws cannot be shown to prevent the acts that they are poroposed in response to.

Cannot be proven, correct.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Do you believe it would be constitutional....not if you'd agree with it, not if you'd think it'd be needed, not if you think it's "wrong"....to require people to be liscensed prior to be able to speak in a public venue about politics?
I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I think you will acknowledge that when we talk about a rise in crime we're not talking about what you wrote. I was referring to a rise in gun crime / violent crime because of the ban on certain weapons and clips.

there is no evidence the law impacted crime at all. we do know that several well publicized mass murders did occur during the ban period including Columbine. of course pipe bombs are 100% contraband and the two killers had those devices as well
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?

you cannot require a criminal to apply for a license or register a gun since that violates his right against incrimination. so such schemes cannot even apply to the people most likely to misuse a gun. its illegal to fire a gun in a theater unless you are being attacked-just as its legal to yell fire if there is indeed a fire

don't confuse use restrictions with bans on possession
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?

What he is asking is if you find the idea of needing a license to engage in a constitutionally guaranteed right would pass muster, or more specifically a right guaranteed under the bill of rights. I can think of a couple legal arguments that could be used, but I have real doubts as to how effective those arguments would be in court.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I do not understand your analogy?

I asked a very simple question. Are you going to answer it or not? I'll be happy to explain further rationale once you actually respond to the question I ask. If you're going to refrain from do it and just start guessing at my intent without actually engaging in a discussion then there's really no reason to bother explaining myself further.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I do not understand your analogy? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech unless you yell "Fire" etc. Licensing a gun owner the way we do a driver seems constitutional and rational to me. What about licensing do you object to? Who would it prevent from owning or buying a gun?

If you do not think it would prevent people from owning a gun, why would you want gun owners to be licensed since it wouldn't do anything except create government revenue and have no effect on who gets guns? I don't understand your rationale at all......
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

there is no evidence the law impacted crime at all. we do know that several well publicized mass murders did occur during the ban period including Columbine. of course pipe bombs are 100% contraband and the two killers had those devices as well

True, there is no statistical support for the proposition that the AWB reduced gun homicides. OTOH, the results are probably skewed for several reasons:

1. Gun manufacturers ramped up AW manufacture and import prior to the ban going into effect;
2. That contributed to the already large stockpile of existing AWs;
3. The ban didn't last long enough to see a meaningful reduction in the stockpile.

Over all there is evidence that stricter gun laws reduce gun deaths and violence, but there is no ... ahem ... magic bullet regulation. What can make a difference is a combination of tighter restrictions, such as requiring background checks for private sales, limiting magazine capacity, stricter carry laws, laws requiring the securing of stored guns, etc., etc.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

True, there is no statistical support for the proposition that the AWB reduced gun homicides. OTOH, the results are probably skewed for several reasons:

1. Gun manufacturers ramped up AW manufacture and import prior to the ban going into effect;
2. That contributed to the already large stockpile of existing AWs;
3. The ban didn't last long enough to see a meaningful reduction in the stockpile.
4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the law and continued selling them.
 
Last edited:
Re: NRA Newtown response

4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the and continued selling them.

So to get the type of efficacy you seem to desire in solid legislation you would also be supportive of modifications in the law to keep pace with those of manufacturers?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

So... there isn't enough data to form a reasoned, sound argument for stricter gun laws.
I'd also add that most suggestions for stricter gun laws cannot be shown to prevent the acts that they are poroposed in response to.

It seems to have achieved just that in Australia in the narrow goal of preventing more mass murders.

And by your own criteria, those were the events that the Australian law was proposed in response to. There, you got exactly what you seem to want.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

It seems to have achieved just that in Australia in the narrow goal of preventing more mass murders.

And by your own criteria, those were the events that the Australian law was proposed in response to. There, you got exactly what you seem to want.

Except the murder rate and the violent crime rate have jumped 300 %
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

4: The ban didnt ban anything as the manufacturers modified their designs to comply with the law and continued selling them.
5. There was no reduction in the "stockpile"

6. "assualt weapons" account for just 3% of murders in the United States.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Except the murder rate and the violent crime rate have jumped 300 %

I have seen some present statistics on that and I have also read criticisms of those same statistics.

But rather than get into that, I think the challenge of White and others should be looked at. They want a law which will prevent mass killing incidents like this latest one. That is the same thing Australia wanted. And that is what they got. It was extremely successful in that goal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/18/gun-control-port-arthur/1778519/

The results are hard to argue with. According to a Harvard University study, 13 gun massacres (in which four or more people died) occurred in the 18 years before the law was enacted. In the 16 years since there has been none. Zero.

The overall firearm homicide rate dropped from 0.43 per 100,000 in the seven years before the law to 0.25 in the seven years after. By 2009, the rate had dropped further, to just 0.1 per 100,000, or one per million.

In the USA, the 2009 firearm homicide rate was 3.3 per 100,000, some 33 times higher than Australia's.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

you cannot require a criminal to apply for a license or register a gun since that violates his right against incrimination. so such schemes cannot even apply to the people most likely to misuse a gun. its illegal to fire a gun in a theater unless you are being attacked-just as its legal to yell fire if there is indeed a fire

don't confuse use restrictions with bans on possession
Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users? Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users?
No. Do you?

Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?
The vast majority of guns in the US are not registered, and so it stands to reason that the vast majoirty of gun-related "crimes of passion" involve unregistered guns.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

No. Do you?
I asked the question because I do not know.

The vast majority of guns in the US are not registered, and so it stands to reason that the vast majoirty of gun-related "crimes of passion" involve unregistered guns.
So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime? I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed. Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

I asked the question because I do not know.


So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime? I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed. Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?

You now equate privileges and user fees to prerequisites for rights. I offer this simple "rights" compromise; if you are denied the right to keep and bear arms then you are also denied the right to vote.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Do you know what percentage of gun violence / murders annually in the USA are committed as a "crime of passion" not by criminals but by registered gun users? Is there any correlation to crimes of passion gun incidents and non-registered guns?

What is a "registered" gun user?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

So if the vast majority of guns were registered how would that increase crime?
No one claims that it would.

I think it would reduce crime especially if gun owners are required to pass some tests in order to be licensed.
Specifically, why?
Please be sure to consult the CT laws regarding handguns before you respond.

Are you against driver's licences too? Are you against hunting licenses etc.?
These are provileges, not rights.
Further, you do not need a license to buy or own a car.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Registered how? I have some guns but none are registered. It must be a NY thing. ;)
Same here - none are registered.
For whatever reason, people seem to think that gun registration is common.
 
Back
Top Bottom