• 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!

I Used To Think Gun Control Was The Answer

KevinKohler said:
I know that those big cities have increases in GUN crime rates that are in direct proportion to increasingly strict gun laws.

I know there are other big cities without such strict gun laws that have decreasing gun crime rates.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see your data. NYC is statistically one of the safest cities in America and it has highly restrictive gun laws, and is a city that has seen its crime rate plummet with no change in gun laws. The murder rate in New Orleans, LA (42) is 14 times higher than in NYC (3). And in CA with strict state gun laws, the murder rate ranges from over 20 in Oakland to 6 in San Francisco, and less than 3 in San Diego.

If you'd like to make a point that gun laws don't appear to significantly affect gun crime rates, that might be true enough, although tough to prove because we can't test the alternative reality. And I don't know if putting a gun store on every corner in NYC would IMPROVE the gun crime rate. Doesn't seem to help Houston, TX, with a murder rate (13) more than 4 times as high as NYC but where open and concealed carry are both legal.
 
apdst said:
Don't think we haven't noticed that the same folks who advocate using violence to press their political agenda and to silence dissent are the same people that are trying to restrict, or ban gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Yeah, OK, as is typical you moved the goal posts. I know better than to engage and expect an actual debate. Shame on me for making an effort.
 
haymarket said:
Its a basic fallacy employed by the NRA, the gun industry and their toadies and sycophants. The idea they keep pushing is that any idea suggested must solve the latest tragedy or else its not worth considering. That is intellectual fraud at its worst.
Click to expand...

As the NRA (and others) are only responding to the actual fraud that this tragedy was caused by a lack of gun control and the NRA, well...it seems your contempt has led you to spewing wrong-headed nonsense. Look who draws the nexus between this killing, gun control measures, and the NRA.

Hillary Clinton "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."

Jimmy Kimmel: “I’ve been reading comments from people saying this is terrible but there’s nothing we can do about it, but I disagree with that intensely because, of course, there’s something we can do about it. There are a lot of things we could do about it, but we don’t. ... The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-Ky.] and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan [R-Wisc.]and a number of other lawmakers who won’t do anything about this because the NRA has their b*lls in a money clip."

The NRA is responding to those who claim that the tragedy was due to a lack of gun control law and NRA lobbying against that law. The only intellectual fraud afoot are those who exploit a mass killing tragedy and then push control policies would have little nexus to that tragedy.

That should be self-evident.
 
KevinKohler said:
I know that those big cities have increases in GUN crime rates that are in direct proportion to increasingly strict gun laws.

I know there are other big cities without such strict gun laws that have decreasing gun crime rates.
Click to expand...

Speculating here, but isn't it possible, likely even, that the high gun crime rates preceded those strict gun laws in those cities? And that those cities without strict gun laws don't have stricter laws because they weren't necessary in that city?
 
apdst said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
Click to expand...
haymarket said:
And how did gun laws cause that?
Click to expand...
apdst said:
Highly restrictive gun laws didn't stop it, is the point.
Click to expand...

Let's see, looking at the murder rates of the US and France: [1]
US - 4.88 per 100k people
France - 1.58 per 100k people

So the US has a 3 times higher murder rate, so how do you know having less guns in a country doesn't prevent a lot of massacres? Nobody, literally nobody has said that ALL killing will stop with gun control, but if every man, woman and child is armed to the teeth they're going to be a lot more efficient if they decide to snap and go on a killing spree.

I do support the basic right to a firearm, but this argument is just dishonest.
 
JasperL said:
Yeah, OK, as is typical you moved the goal posts. I know better than to engage and expect an actual debate. Shame on me for making an effort.
Click to expand...

It sure would make it easier for antifa and BLM to intimidate dissenters if the dissenters were unarmed. Eh?

You aren't making effort. You're spewing you gun ban crap. You aren't interested in ending the gun violence. You only want to ban guns. Be honest.
 
Critter7r said:
Speculating here, but isn't it possible, likely even, that the high gun crime rates preceded those strict gun laws in those cities? And that those cities without strict gun laws don't have stricter laws because they weren't necessary in that city?
Click to expand...

Most likely true.

Which would mean that gun control laws don't have much, if any, effect on gun crime rates.
 
AYSM said:
I'd express it as: right on...:thumbs:

Why do you see the OP like that?
Click to expand...

Because the OP's posts and history run completely counter to his claims. He makes these ridiculous claims all the time.
 
Moderate Right said:
This is me. I also used to be very big on gun control, even after switching from being a liberal Democrat to a conservative Republican. I used to donate money regularly to the cause. Now, I just get pissed off at the left for not addressing the real problems of gun violence (people), instead focusing on gun control legislation that won't make much of a difference at all, mainly only effecting law abiding gun owners. Their rallying cry of "gun control" is nothing but a feel good talking point that gives them a false sense of security in thinking that their proposals will actually do much when they won't. Time and time again if you look at all of the gun control ideas the left has they would not have been able to stop the huge majority of the mass shootings we have had. The left is trying to put feel good band aids on a bleed out and expect it to work. We need to address the problems and the people, not the guns themselves.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Click to expand...

So what should be done? All we hear from the right on the subject is what won't work. What will work?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Let's see, looking at the murder rates of the US and France: [1]
US - 4.88 per 100k people
France - 1.58 per 100k people

So the US has a 3 times higher murder rate, so how do you know having less guns in a country doesn't prevent a lot of massacres? Nobody, literally nobody has said that ALL killing will stop with gun control, but if every man, woman and child is armed to the teeth they're going to be a lot more efficient if they decide to snap and go on a killing spree.

I do support the basic right to a firearm, but this argument is just dishonest.
Click to expand...

Mandatory death penalty for gun crimes.
 
KevinKohler said:
I know that those big cities have increases in GUN crime rates that are in direct proportion to increasingly strict gun laws.

I know there are other big cities without such strict gun laws that have decreasing gun crime rates.
Click to expand...

Correlation is not causation. Here in Chicago there are strict gun laws, but it is not those strict laws that lead to more guns on the streets, it is the smuggling of guns from Indiana.
 
apdst said:
Mandatory death penalty for gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, lots of people going on shooting rampages will be deterred by the death penalty. :roll: Overly simplistic solutions to complex problems. If only we had clearly communicated to Paddock that he'd be put to death if he shot all of those people.
 
apdst said:
Guns use can be regulated. Gun ownership cannot.
Click to expand...

Do you believe, then, a mentally ill person should be able to purchase a gun?
 
Grand Mal said:
So what should be done? All we hear from the right on the subject is what won't work. What will work?
Click to expand...

1. Get a handle on illegal immigration.

2. Mandatory death sentence and life sentence for gun crimes.
 
maxparrish said:
As the NRA (and others) are only responding to the actual fraud that this tragedy was caused by a lack of gun control and the NRA, well...it seems your contempt has led you to spewing wrong-headed nonsense. Look who draws the nexus between this killing, gun control measures, and the NRA.

Hillary Clinton "Our grief isn't enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again."

Jimmy Kimmel: “I’ve been reading comments from people saying this is terrible but there’s nothing we can do about it, but I disagree with that intensely because, of course, there’s something we can do about it. There are a lot of things we could do about it, but we don’t. ... The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell [R-Ky.] and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan [R-Wisc.]and a number of other lawmakers who won’t do anything about this because the NRA has their b*lls in a money clip."

The NRA is responding to those who claim that the tragedy was due to a lack of gun control law and NRA lobbying against that law. The only intellectual fraud afoot are those who exploit a mass killing tragedy and then push control policies would have little nexus to that tragedy.

That should be self-evident.
Click to expand...

It seems to me another intellectual fraud is concluding that literally NOTHING can be done to lessen gun violence.

Just for example, if this guy was Muslim and the NSA learned through various means (such as a centralized gun registry) that he was acquiring an arsenal of guns, 10s of thousands of rounds of ammo, with no apparent need for any of it, he'd have been put on a watch list and hopefully his movements tracked, and when he showed up with a couple dozen guns and enough ammo for a small war in a hotel in LV, likely his room raided and him arrested. And we'd all cheer and think NOTHING about it.

What's offensive to the pro-gun crowd is this guy was by all accounts so far a law abiding citizen and white guy with no ties to Muslim terrorist groups, and so we can't imagine anything we can do that to detect this plot and stop it that wouldn't infringe on our rights. Well, fine, but that's entirely different than believing nothing can be done. We spend $10s of billions trying to stop these attacks by extremists. Is it an intellectual fraud to believe those efforts might make a difference?
 
Geoist said:
Correlation is not causation. Here in Chicago there are strict gun laws, but it is not those strict laws that lead to more guns on the streets, it is the smuggling of guns from Indiana.
Click to expand...

So....what you're saying is....new laws have made no difference?
 
Geoist said:
Do you believe, then, a mentally ill person should be able to purchase a gun?
Click to expand...

No, I don't.

How do we determine who isn't too whacko to own a gun and insure the protection of our civil rights?

Show me how and I'm all for it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I do support the basic right to a firearm, but this argument is just dishonest.
Click to expand...

^This. I am often labeled as 'anti-gun ownership' by some because it drives me crazy when people make ridiculous claims/assumptions just because it fits their political agenda.
 
Geoist said:
Do you believe, then, a mentally ill person should be able to purchase a gun?
Click to expand...

Mentally ill, how? ADHD? Autism? What sorts of mental illness would prevent legal gun ownership, in your opinion?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Yeah, lots of people going on shooting rampages will be deterred by the death penalty. :roll: Overly simplistic solutions to complex problems. If only we had clearly communicated to Paddock that he'd be put to death if he shot all of those people.
Click to expand...

You are only concerned about preventing mass shootings? Nevermind all the other gun crimes committed? If that's the case, why did you post the overall murder rate?
 
apdst said:
1. Get a handle on illegal immigration.

2. Mandatory death sentence and life sentence for gun crimes.
Click to expand...

Which one of those would stop a born American who kills himself after shooting a few hundred people?
 
Grand Mal said:
Which one of those would stop a born American who kills himself after shooting a few hundred people?
Click to expand...

You're not interested in stopping all gun crimes, just the mass shooting?

That confirms my original claim: Liberals aren't interested in saving lives, only banning guns.
 
Geoist said:
^This. I am often labeled as 'anti-gun ownership' by some because it drives me crazy when people make ridiculous claims/assumptions just because it fits their political agenda.
Click to expand...

It kind of reminds me of that thread a few weeks back about some scientific study that was like "Study finds a higher number of guns leads to a higher rate of gun related crime". It's like yeah... no ****... anyone willing to be honest will admit that, regardless of your views. I just think maybe we shouldn't worship guns to the level we do and not be jam packed with so many that a dozen fall out when we bend over.

apdst said:
You are only concerned about preventing mass shootings? Nevermind all the other gun crimes committed? If that's the case, why did you post the overall murder rate?
Click to expand...

I know you're not interested in an honest discussion, but yes, I'm interested in reducing all violent crime. My point is simply that yes we should have the basic right to own a gun for self-defense and hunting, but we've let it get too far out of control. If you have two identical societies, one with 10 guns per 100 people and one with 200 per 100 people, you're probably going to have a lot higher rate of gun related crimes and mass shootings. If you find yourself in a desperate mind state, as people periodically tend to do, you're more likely to become violent if you've got dozens of guns in arms reach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom