• 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!

What are some gun control measures liberals advocate for?

If U.S. enacted gun control, would homicides go up, down, or stay the same?

  • Homicides would go up

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Homicides would go down

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • Homicides would stay the same

    Votes: 9 56.3%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Fritz said:
Well it does seem to me that Trump is hesitant on where he should stand. It struck me in this article, Trump is shown to be fickle and even took some heat form the NRA.

Donald Trump's changing gun positions - CNNPolitics.com

Trump gun policy panel hasn't even met on their official movement on gun control, so this is where my skepticism comes from on Trump's gun policies.

Donald Trump's gun-policy panel still hasn't met: Report - Washington Times
Click to expand...

Does it really matter what policies Trump favors? Laws are created by Congress, and any changes to current gun control will come through that body. I don't think Trump is brave enough to ignore any legislation from the Republicans.
 
Winston said:
I definitely do not support ending immunity for gun manufacturers. People that make guns, should not be held liable for crimes committed with the weapons they made. That's ridiculous and an overreach.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many Democrats do support that measure, though. The smart ones see it as a way to end gun manufacturing in the US.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
The problem with banning the mentally ill who haven't yet been through the court system is how will the gun sellers know the person is mentally ill? Should mental health professionals be required to put their patients' names on a government list without their permission? If they do that, people will be less likely to seek medical help.
Click to expand...

And those professionals would likely be violating HIPAA protections, too.
 
TheGoverness said:
I guess that would depend on what gun control measures you are advocating for. If, for example, you are wanting to ban assault rifles and reduce magazine capacity, I don't think either of those measures would be very effective in reducing homicides.
Click to expand...

Right, thanks for keeping everyone on track. The gun debate gets messy quickly. We were already heading into the ginky weeds.

I don't want to speak for anyone else but, my goal is less gun deaths, per year. Less mass shootings. How can we achieve that? I don't think it's by simply banning the AR-15. Goshin already 'splained that to me, in the thread I linked earlier. "Please 'splain this to me" I thought the AR-15 was fully automatic. The gun control forum even has a thread sticky, for the uninitiated, that explains all the different types of guns.

What is the answer? Because doing nothing isn't working.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does it really matter what policies Trump favors? Laws are created by Congress, and any changes to current gun control will come through that body. I don't think Trump is brave enough to ignore any legislation from the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Where did all Trump's bravado and overconfidence on controlling Congress go????
 
Winston said:
Right, thanks for keeping everyone on track. The gun debate gets messy quickly. We were already heading into the ginky weeds.

I don't want to speak for anyone else but, my goal is less gun deaths, per year. Less mass shootings. How can we achieve that? I don't think it's by simply banning the AR-15. Goshin already 'splained that to me, in the thread I linked earlier. "Please 'splain this to me" I thought the AR-15 was fully automatic. The gun control forum even has a thread sticky, for the uninitiated, that explains all the different types of guns.

What is the answer? Because doing nothing isn't working.
Click to expand...

Are we actually "doing nothing"? Mass shootings are rare enough - how would we get to fewer? In 2010, with at least 300 million guns out there, Mother Jones records that we had one mass murder shootings in the US.
 
Fritz said:
Where did all Trump's bravado and overconfidence on controlling Congress go????
Click to expand...

Well, there's bravado, and there's realpolitik.
 
Winston said:
No, not all of them.
Click to expand...

Probably the most important take-away is that the executive branch doesn't get to make laws, and they created a new prohibited class by fiat. The second takeaway is who was also against the SSA move:

"ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International. All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed."

Read more at: No, the GOP Did Not Just Repeal the Background Check System or Give Guns to the Mentally Il | National Review
 
Winston said:
What are the gun control measures liberals advocate for? I know people were scared Obama was going to confiscate all guns. I think conservatives worked themselves into a frenzy about gun confiscation. That was never Obama's policy, I don't think he ever thought that would be constitutional or, a good policy.

If confiscation isn't a liberal policy, what is an example of one? Background checks? Banning certain weapons? And do you think homicides would go up, down, or stay the same, if the U.S. did some gun control?
Click to expand...

We have background checks now so that certainly isn't the issue. I think the issue is getting government involved in private gun sales. They regulate gun sales that involve a gun dealer. They want to regulate private citizens as well. Freedom lovers don't like this kind of government intrusion.
 
Winston said:
Right, thanks for keeping everyone on track. The gun debate gets messy quickly. We were already heading into the ginky weeds.


I don't want to speak for anyone else but, my goal is less gun deaths, per year. Less mass shootings. How can we achieve that? I don't think it's by simply banning the AR-15. Goshin already 'splained that to me, in the thread I linked earlier. "Please 'splain this to me" I thought the AR-15 was fully automatic. The gun control forum even has a thread sticky, for the uninitiated, that explains all the different types of guns.

What is the answer? Because doing nothing isn't working.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any one definitive answer to effectively combat gun deaths in this country. It's a very complicated issue to deal with.
 
Winston said:
Right, thanks for keeping everyone on track. The gun debate gets messy quickly. We were already heading into the ginky weeds.

I don't want to speak for anyone else but, my goal is less gun deaths, per year. Less mass shootings. How can we achieve that? I don't think it's by simply banning the AR-15. Goshin already 'splained that to me, in the thread I linked earlier. "Please 'splain this to me" I thought the AR-15 was fully automatic. The gun control forum even has a thread sticky, for the uninitiated, that explains all the different types of guns.

What is the answer? Because doing nothing isn't working.
Click to expand...

The answer is to focus on the causes of violence, not the tools.
 
According to FBI, in 2013, there were 1.2 million violent crimes

1.2% of those were murder
70% of murders uses guns

So why are we focused on the tools used in less than 1% of violent crime instead of the causes of ALL violent crime?
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't think there is any one definitive answer to effectively combat gun deaths in this country. It's a very complicated issue to deal with.
Click to expand...

One that I can think of is to wage all out war on gangs. We could start by sending all the MS-13 gang members back to El Salvador.
 
jonny5 said:
The answer is to focus on the causes of violence, not the tools.
Click to expand...

I reluctantly, agree, people need access to mental health professionals. If you take that one step farther, you could argue that more people without health coverage, leads to more gun deaths.
 
ataraxia said:
I would like to see the gun show loophole closed for people with a history of certain mental conditions like schizophophrenia, or Alzheimer's disease, or convicted violent felons, or those on a terrorist watch list.

We restrict drivers' licenses for people with vision problems like macular degeneration and glaucoma, and those with certain conditions like a history of Alzheimer's or seizure disorders. I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right like gun ownership. But just like there are some limits on all constitutional rights, including the right to scream fire in a crowded movie theater, or for Jehovah's Witnesses to deny potentially lifesaving blood transfusions for their children, it's OK to have some sensible restrictions on the this particular right as well. This doesn't mean Obama will be coming to take away anyone's hunting rifle from their cold, dead hands.

For this to happen, all gun sales/purchases must be registered. This is no different than how all car sales are registered with the state government in certain states for purposes of property taxes. Again, this doesn't mean Obama will be coming to take away anyone's hunting rifle from their cold, dead hands.

Fighting such easy, commonsense measures is just a level of unreasonable neurosis that is highly dysfunctional and dangerous.
Click to expand...

The groups you cite are for the most part already barred from possessing firearms. Those groups possessing legally owned guns are not the problem. The problem is the groups illegally possessing guns.

The same involving the so called gun show loophole. Simply, there is not much of a problem. Criminals do not just wander into a gun show where there is an abundance of cops and seek out the occasional loner selling granddads collection. They buy from the corner gun dealer.

Which means that in order to work out crimes which include guns, the problem that needs to be addressed is illegal possession.
 
jonny5 said:
Im not happy, no. Why should i need a govt stamp to own a weapon? How about this instead? If govt wants to take away my weapons then THEY have to get permission from a civilian panel.
Click to expand...
Yeah...dont expect me to defend government actions...
 
"I reluctantly, agree, people need access to mental health professionals." W #41
Click to expand...
- dandy -

BUT !!

Intrinsic to our legal system is the "patient / doctor privilege", that a doctor cannot be compelled to testify in court to confidential disclosures; even if the patient confesses to planning to end the human race tomorrow.

BUT !!

We've (they've) carved out a huge exception; and (for example) concealed carry permits can be denied or revoked for reasons such as:

- a citizen seeking help with a drug issue, or

- a long past criminal conviction.

I've read the 2nd Amendment from start to finish.

There isn't a single syllable in there about "mental health", or "heroin addiction", or "apply for license", or any of the rest of it.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" are they having a problem with?
 
Winston said:
I reluctantly, agree, people need access to mental health professionals. If you take that one step farther, you could argue that more people without health coverage, leads to more gun deaths.
Click to expand...

Or knife deaths. The tool is irrelevant.
 
jonny5 said:
Youre offering up a govt solution. Go see the man and get his approval to buy a weapon.
Click to expand...

Like it or not we live in a nation of laws. Further...we live under at least the theory of 'states rights' so like it or not, places like California are going to hit you with even MORE restrictions. Sucks...dont it?
 
ataraxia said:
Why has the NRA pushed through legislation banning pediatricians' offices from talking to parents about the potential dangers of guns in the home to children? It is one of the top reasons of accidental death/dismemberment/blindness in young children in this country. This danger does not exist in any other developed nation. Pediatricians are allowed to educate the parents on the dangers of leaving the bleach within easy access of small children, or locking away grandma's heart medication, or plugging the electric outlets. Why should guns be different? It's crazy.
Click to expand...

Because the American Academy of Pediatrics has taken a hard line anti gun position, if you ever hear a pediatrician talking about guns, it always reverts back to "never own them period, it's too dangerous"

If the medical elite was openly in favor of banning electrical outlets as too dangerous I'm sure legislatures would be on that as well. For the most part too pediatricians are not licensed as any kind of expert on firearms storage or use. so why should they be giving advice on it?

Accidental shootings are not one of the top reasons of childhood injury in this country.

https://www.cdc.gov/safechild/pdf/cdc-childhoodinjury.pdf

Firearms injuries are not even enough to rate their own category on the CDC report, falls, drowning, motor vehicle incidents, all claim more lives.
 
Winston said:
Well, I don't know. Guns and by extensions gun control, is not a subject I'm well versed in. It looks like this law may be sufficient. Does that mean drug addicts are prevented from owning guns? If they've been to a "mental health facility"?? Or, just people who've been institutionalized in state hospitals?

I vaguely recall some outrage, in the past 3-4 months, over congress allowing the mentally ill's access to guns.
Click to expand...

Ordered committed against their will by a judge or state administrative board empowered to commit people for mental health reasons.

if a drug addict were ordered committed against his/her will as mentally defective then yes they would be prohibited from owning guns.

Also people who are (currently) addicted to or unlawful users of a controlled substance are prohibited from owning guns. having checked one's self into drug rehab in the past would not qualify.
 
ataraxia said:
I would like to see the gun show loophole closed for people with a history of certain mental conditions like schizophophrenia, or Alzheimer's disease, or convicted violent felons, or those on a terrorist watch list.

We restrict drivers' licenses for people with vision problems like macular degeneration and glaucoma, and those with certain conditions like a history of Alzheimer's or seizure disorders. I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutionally guaranteed right like gun ownership. But just like there are some limits on all constitutional rights, including the right to scream fire in a crowded movie theater, or for Jehovah's Witnesses to deny potentially lifesaving blood transfusions for their children, it's OK to have some sensible restrictions on the this particular right as well. This doesn't mean Obama will be coming to take away anyone's hunting rifle from their cold, dead hands.

For this to happen, all gun sales/purchases must be registered. This is no different than how all car sales are registered with the state government in certain states for purposes of property taxes. Again, this doesn't mean Obama will be coming to take away anyone's hunting rifle from their cold, dead hands.

Fighting such easy, commonsense measures is just a level of unreasonable neurosis that is highly dysfunctional and dangerous.
Click to expand...

there is no gun show loophole and anyone who claims there is demonstrates they are either too ignorant of the laws to argue gun control or too dishonest to be taken seriously.

registration violates the constitution and cannot be supported under any circumstance since its main goal is to facilitate confiscation of firearms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom