• 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!

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

Uh, yes. Regulations are going to affect people across the board.

Also, look at your own standard -- you wanted to know what could be done that would not deprive citizens of the right to own or carry firearms. You did not say that you wanted regulations that would not prevent anyone from taking a firearm anywhere they want, any way that they want.



News flash! A single person attacked by 3 people is not likely to mount a successful defense. Having 17 bullets instead of 10 is not likely to turn the tide, especially if the defender can't hit the side of a barn with a sawed-off shotgun while in a high-stress situation.

What we do know is that mass shooters often favor high-capacity magazines, and that the need to reload (or switch weapons) does tend to slow them down. Given that there may not be much else we can do about mass shooters, I don't see a problem with this one.



So, let me get this straight.

You accept that armed civilians are basically unable to defend themselves (or at least, at a severe disadvantage), because most of the time they're going to miss, and one bullet hit is insufficient. You do understand this undercuts the validity of the self-defense argument in the first place, yes?

Is the only way to ensure your safety to carry a Tommy Gun with a 100-round drum mag, and fire indiscriminately at your suspected attackers?

And of course, you do know that violent crime rates are down significantly since 1992? That a large percentage of homicides are not these kinds of "Stranger Danger" situations at all, rather the killer is known to the victim?

I don't see a substantial "real life foundation" to the scenarios you're positing here.



We already have a process by which someone who poses a potential danger to self or others can be evaluated. It wouldn't be difficult at all to include provisions in that type of process by which access to firearms can be temporarily restricted, even if the person does not need to be committed to a mental health facility. We can also add provisions by which police can refer someone for evaluation.

Also, if we had a national database, individuals can be temporarily barred from purchasing firearms until they were determined to no longer be a danger.

Will it achieve 100% accuracy? Of course not, but nothing does. Laws against homicide do not reduce homicides to 0; laws against drinking while intoxicated will not completely eliminate DUI's; laws against car theft don't stop every car thief. None of us want to live in the type of police state that would get close to that level of compliance. That's an irrational standard, and one that we do not apply to other regulations.

Last but not least: Many other nations do use these kinds of laws, and do see lower gun ownership rates, lower homicide rates and fewer mass shootings than the US. Go figure.

so much nonsense in this silliness I have no idea where to start but you continue to demonstrate you have zero understanding of self defense issues with firearms. one person can often defend themselves against 3 attackers if they understand cover and concealment. why are police officers-who have no greater right of deploying deadly force than the rest of us-issued 15-30 shot magazines.

what I love is people who are gun restrictionists and dislike gun owners pretend they are in a position to tell us who firearms are used
 
Once again lets force the law abiding citizen to jump through hoops because government is too lazy and incompetent to go after the people breaking the laws.
Oh, really?

Which laws require universal background checks?

Which laws require the federal government to set up a database to let sellers verify whether an out-of-state purchaser is a felon, or otherwise ineligible to purchase a gun?

Since when does the NRA support the ATF's attempts to crack down on straw purchases, and the gun shops that facilitate those straw purchases?

You fail to realize that the NRA and its cohorts have basically gutted the laws, thwarted research, hobbled enforcement, and basically done everything they can to ensure those laws are ineffectual?


Just look at how successful the war on drugs has been. You can expect the same results with all your red tape you require from the law abiding citizen. Criminals and non law abiding citizens will still have guns.
lol

By that logic, we should eliminate immigration laws altogether -- look at how badly those laws have failed! And in that case, it's certainly not a result of a failed desire to stop illegal immigration; year after year, no matter who is in charge, no matter how much Arpaio blusters, no matter how many laws we pass, the problem isn't enforcement. It's that as long as the US economy is perceived to be better off, people will break the law to enter the US.


Always the same with the left.
Rationalization, hypocrisy, failure to understand the full implications of their arguments... a frequent hallmark of the pro-gunners. So sad.
 
I am staunchly pro-second amendment and would be opposed to a gun ban. But realistically, if guns were banned nationwide I do believe murder and successful suicide attempts would decrease. I'll ignore suicide for now because I believe an adult should have the right to commit suicide if he or she wants.

If the ban included the destruction of any guns the police find then yes, I think murders would decrease. I don't think you can compare banning guns to banning drugs. Drugs are a lot easier, and cheaper, to make and smuggle into the US than guns. You can make drugs in someone's garage. Machining a semi-automatic rifles or pistol is nowhere near as simple or cheap to do.

Organized crime and gangs would still manage to get them but your average Joe in a crime of passion would have a tough time getting one.

Of course, as 3D printing technology improves the difficulty of making them will decrease anyway.
 
Uh, yes. Regulations are going to affect people across the board.

Also, look at your own standard -- you wanted to know what could be done that would not deprive citizens of the right to own or carry firearms. You did not say that you wanted regulations that would not prevent anyone from taking a firearm anywhere they want, any way that they want.
.


If I didnt write it specifically to you, I have written it many times: what restrictions/regulations would you put in place that would "actually STOP criminals and yet not punish (yes restricting our ability to carry, to have enough ammo, to decide for ourselves what protection we need for our individual homes and circumstances, etc etc etc HARMS the law-abiding, it's punitive) the legal, law-abiding gun owner/carrier?"
 
If I didnt write it specifically to you, I have written it many times: what restrictions/regulations would you put in place that would "actually STOP criminals and yet not punish (yes restricting our ability to carry, to have enough ammo, to decide for ourselves what protection we need for our individual homes and circumstances, etc etc etc HARMS the law-abiding, it's punitive) the legal, law-abiding gun owner/carrier?"
*sigh*

Regulations are not punishments. 18 year olds are not being punished when we bar them from purchasing alcohol. Requiring licenses to operate an automobile or a motorcycle is not a punishment. Seatbelt laws are not a punishment for driving or sitting in a car. Your retroactive attempts to conflate these two very different concepts is not valid.

Rights are not absolute. The right to freedom of speech does not mean you can defame someone, or issue a threat. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms; being human empowers you to self-defense. Neither empowers you to own an M60 or an Abrams tank because you are terrified of an impending zombie apocalypse.

Similarly, regulations often tend to affect the population as a whole, in order to prevent abuse. E.g. we do not grant "responsible" teens the right to purchase alcohol, because there is little doubt they would quickly abuse the exception.

Best of all: You ignored most of my suggestions, as they do not impede law-abiding citizens from procuring guns. Funding research, UCB, national databases, tracking weapons better, IDs in weapons, bullet tracking tech, brief waiting periods, cracking down on corrupt gun deals -- not a problem.

And hey, I thought of two more!
• Increasing funding and training for firearms enforcement
• Increasing training requirements for gun owners
• Mandating proper storage of firearms (haven't we had enough of toddlers accidentally shooting people in cars?
 
Murder would probably increase. Banning them would not eliminate them.
Suicide would probably drop VERY slightly for a while.
 
*sigh*

Regulations are not punishments. 18 year olds are not being punished when we bar them from purchasing alcohol. Requiring licenses to operate an automobile or a motorcycle is not a punishment. Seatbelt laws are not a punishment for driving or sitting in a car. Your retroactive attempts to conflate these two very different concepts is not valid.

Rights are not absolute. The right to freedom of speech does not mean you can defame someone, or issue a threat. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms; being human empowers you to self-defense. Neither empowers you to own an M60 or an Abrams tank because you are terrified of an impending zombie apocalypse.

Similarly, regulations often tend to affect the population as a whole, in order to prevent abuse. E.g. we do not grant "responsible" teens the right to purchase alcohol, because there is little doubt they would quickly abuse the exception.

Best of all: You ignored most of my suggestions, as they do not impede law-abiding citizens from procuring guns. Funding research, UCB, national databases, tracking weapons better, IDs in weapons, bullet tracking tech, brief waiting periods, cracking down on corrupt gun deals -- not a problem.

And hey, I thought of two more!
• Increasing funding and training for firearms enforcement
• Increasing training requirements for gun owners
• Mandating proper storage of firearms (haven't we had enough of toddlers accidentally shooting people in cars?

Of course they are punishments. They punish us for doing what we think best for our lives, our circumstances. I thought I spelled that out for you. They punish us when we have ***done nothing wrong.*** They punish us with preventative restrictions..."in case we might!" that may end up with us not being able to prevent crimes committed on us.

I understand how you dont like the semantics, but it is the 'reality' of your 'restrictions.'

And exactly what makes you think that lack of training is a cause for gun violence? That DOES punish some gun owners...it costs them $$ for some kind of state-required testing/certification process. It assumes they already dont have training (many people grow up learning gun safety, or take courses on their own, like myself.) And, lol, do you think the actual criminals are going to do so? Good lord, do you even think most of these thru??

Another point: many states have NO training requirements. The rest of the states? ALL their requirements are different. So...'how much training is *enough*?' Do you have that answer? I dont think so, because the states with no training requirements dont have any higher incidences of gun accidents. Again...not researched, it just 'sounds' good to you.

Another punishment: mandating that *I* have to lock up my firearm that I keep next to my bed. Why? I have no kids? There are states that require I have it locked up anytime I'm not home (so it cant be stolen.) Again, *I* am punished, not the criminal that would steal it. *I* am punished for someone else's POTENTIAL crime. Why should I be penalized and MY life endangered, not allowing me to keep my firearm at the ready? Of course we all know it's the right thing to do with kids around. If it has to be mandated *you cant force parents to do so.*You can only arrest them after the fact, like any other crime. So it's not 'preventative.' The education is the preventative, constructive part. Not 'law.'
 
Last edited:
Of course they are punishments. They punish us for doing what we think best for our lives, our circumstances. I thought I spelled that out for you. They punish us when we have ***done nothing wrong.***
You obviously do not understand the difference between "punishment" and "regulation." Not my problem. Moving on.


And exactly what makes you think that lack of training is a cause for gun violence? That DOES punish some gun owners...it costs them $$ for some kind of state-required testing/certification process.
latest


To be precise, I think it will reduce accidents far more than violence. (And no, I seriously doubt that the research refutes the connection, since gun advocates have gutted funding for exactly that kind of research.) But, it is entirely plausible that (for example) proper gun storage can reduce access by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.


It assumes they already dont have training....
...this from the person who reminds me that many states don't have training requirements.

I'm also not talking about 6 weeks of intensive training. But enough to reinforce proper storage, proper transportation, proper care, proper use? Not a bad plan, and certainly not an impediment to owning a firearm. It's certainly no worse than getting a driver's license.


Another punishment: mandating that *I* have to lock up my firearm that I keep next to my bed. Why?
Did I somehow fail to mention the whole toddlers shooting people by accident thing?

And yes, this is how regulations work. We might carve out exceptions if warranted. At any rate, properly storing a firearm does not in any way impede you from owning or using said firearm.

This is no different than seatbelt laws. It's getting people to do what they should be doing anyway.
 
*sigh*

Regulations are not punishments. 18 year olds are not being punished when we bar them from purchasing alcohol. Requiring licenses to operate an automobile or a motorcycle is not a punishment. Seatbelt laws are not a punishment for driving or sitting in a car. Your retroactive attempts to conflate these two very different concepts is not valid.

Rights are not absolute. The right to freedom of speech does not mean you can defame someone, or issue a threat. The 2nd Amendment protects your right to bear arms; being human empowers you to self-defense. Neither empowers you to own an M60 or an Abrams tank because you are terrified of an impending zombie apocalypse.

Similarly, regulations often tend to affect the population as a whole, in order to prevent abuse. E.g. we do not grant "responsible" teens the right to purchase alcohol, because there is little doubt they would quickly abuse the exception.

Best of all: You ignored most of my suggestions, as they do not impede law-abiding citizens from procuring guns. Funding research, UCB, national databases, tracking weapons better, IDs in weapons, bullet tracking tech, brief waiting periods, cracking down on corrupt gun deals -- not a problem.

And hey, I thought of two more!
• Increasing funding and training for firearms enforcement
• Increasing training requirements for gun owners
• Mandating proper storage of firearms (haven't we had enough of toddlers accidentally shooting people in cars?

semantic garbage and dishonesty . If you are a competitive shooter and new regulations ban target shooting-its not technically a punishment in the sense of a legally imposed sentence but it punishes any one who is now banned from doing what they have done legally and enjoyed in the past.

You leftwing gun banners keep claiming that rights are not unlimited but you never ever tell us why those limits are justified and where they derive their legitimate authority from. You do everything possible to find the government more power and to restrict the rights of citizens.

what is really funny is that you are afraid or unable to address my destruction of your silly assertions.

guess what-you have a right own an Abrams tank if you can afford it. what constitutional clause prevents that legitimately or empowers the federal government to ban you from having one

You are already on record wanting to ban certain magazines. That is a position that clearly establishes you have bought into the gun banner mindset.
 
You obviously do not understand the difference between "punishment" and "regulation." Not my problem. Moving on.

I think it's more that you dont understand the real-life ramifications of your suggested 'regulations' on the law-abiding gun owners/carriers.

So my question is...why dont you consider the effects of your regulations on the vast majority of people who own/carry guns? Why doesnt that seem to matter to you? Again....you recommend things that would have little to no effect on people who choose to commit crimes...but would indeed negatively impact those that follow the law.
 
...this from the person who reminds me that many states don't have training requirements.

This from the person that apparently believes that you have to force people to get training. And that people just dont get training unless they have to...yet we have been training voluntarily...for generations.

And I mentioned that...and the fact that there is ZERO data that shows that "mandated" training makes any difference. (Likely because people do so on their own :doh) So you would saddle us, for one of our RIGHTS, with more expense for govt approved training and certification....with no factual basis for doing so :roll:
 
Y

Did I somehow fail to mention the whole toddlers shooting people by accident thing?

SUre...please explain why I have to lock up my firearms when I have no toddlers or any other kids in my home? And rare as visitors as well.

And imagine this: I lock mine away when they DO come over and.....there's no law making me! OMG....I must be the myth come to life!
 
I think it's more that you dont understand the real-life ramifications of your suggested 'regulations' on the law-abiding gun owners/carriers.

So my question is...why dont you consider the effects of your regulations on the vast majority of people who own/carry guns? Why doesnt that seem to matter to you? Again....you recommend things that would have little to no effect on people who choose to commit crimes...but would indeed negatively impact those that follow the law.

well if the REAL goal is harassing that majority who are law abiding citizens, then the schemes start to make more sense don't they?
 
Back
Top Bottom