• 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 .
jonny5 said:
Just because its illegal doesnt mean itll be enforced. Look at immigration.
Click to expand...
Dood...I dont want to fight. We are discussing hypothetical scenarios centered on reality. Cant escape reality. As soon as they make me king, though, I'll fix all that ****.
 
Fritz said:
Both background checks and banning certain weapons (assault rifles) are all liberal policies. If the US did some gun control, homicides would go down since less guns would be in the hands of crazies (excluding smuggled weapons, that's a different story).

Trump seems to flip flop between gun control and anti-gun control, so we won't know for sure what the government is planning on gun control. However Congress is proposing this permit-less concealed carry law that brings a lot of controversy.

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/01/ne...s-concealed-constitutional-carry-reciprocity/
Click to expand...

In talking to my neighbor a couple houses down the street from me, any liberal conceived gun law, only penalizes the law abiding citizens and does virtually nothing to curtail crime. He gave me some current state proposed laws and some federal ones to read through, and as I read them, I tend to agree with him, as these laws, if applied to the real world, are laughable.
Even thou I'm not a gun owner, I can plainly see that having to depend on law enforcement to save my butt, from a violent attacker, is rather foolish. I'm starting to understand how being a gun owner, might just be the difference between being a victim, or being a survivor.
 
Lines are too blurred these days. I wouldn't classify myself as conservative, but I'm pro 2nd. Liberals can be pro 2nd as well. Not a shocker. You don't have to fall in line and be a puppet. It's a shame things have evolved to this point.
 
TaterTots said:
Lines are too blurred these days. I wouldn't classify myself as conservative, but I'm pro 2nd. Liberals can be pro 2nd as well. Not a shocker. You don't have to fall in line and be a puppet. It's a shame things have evolved to this point.
Click to expand...

Blurred is right.
 
Mario said:
In talking to my neighbor a couple houses down the street from me, any liberal conceived gun law, only penalizes the law abiding citizens and does virtually nothing to curtail crime. He gave me some current state proposed laws and some federal ones to read through, and as I read them, I tend to agree with him, as these laws, if applied to the real world, are laughable.
Even thou I'm not a gun owner, I can plainly see that having to depend on law enforcement to save my butt, from a violent attacker, is rather foolish. I'm starting to understand how being a gun owner, might just be the difference between being a victim, or being a survivor.
Click to expand...

That is why I am against banning guns. However, gun control is a lose-lose situation; if you restrict guns more strongly, less guns will be in the hands of people but some will still be killed by the guns that slip by. Allowing more guns will still kill people, but the wild card is if you get lucky and the vast majority of gun owners have no mental issues or homicidal tendencies, all is good. That is why gun policies are lose-lose situations, for a gun can land in the hands of anyone, no matter what.
 
Mario said:
I'm new here. What's a bannerrhoid?
Click to expand...

slang for someone who wants to restrict or ban honest citizens from being able to own certain firearms or accessories.
 
Fritz said:
That is why I am against banning guns. However, gun control is a lose-lose situation; if you restrict guns more strongly, less guns will be in the hands of people but some will still be killed by the guns that slip by. Allowing more guns will still kill people, but the wild card is if you get lucky and the vast majority of gun owners have no mental issues or homicidal tendencies, all is good. That is why gun policies are lose-lose situations, for a gun can land in the hands of anyone, no matter what.
Click to expand...

with gun bans or the crap that takes place in places like DC, Chicago, Baltimore and other areas run by gun banners, the probabilities increase that good people with guns (a good thing) are vastly DECREASED while bad people with firearms (a bad thing that is already illegal many different ways) are not decreased at all
 
Fritz said:
That is why I am against banning guns. However, gun control is a lose-lose situation; if you restrict guns more strongly, less guns will be in the hands of people but some will still be killed by the guns that slip by. Allowing more guns will still kill people, but the wild card is if you get lucky and the vast majority of gun owners have no mental issues or homicidal tendencies, all is good. That is why gun policies are lose-lose situations, for a gun can land in the hands of anyone, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Using the population of the US, as a guide for this, good vs. evil, I'd say the highlighted above, is the most logical scenario.

TurtleDude said:
slang for someone who wants to restrict or ban honest citizens from being able to own certain firearms or accessories.
Click to expand...

Haaaaa.....I get it. Thanks

TurtleDude said:
with gun bans or the crap that takes place in places like DC, Chicago, Baltimore and other areas run by gun banners, the probabilities increase that good people with guns (a good thing) are vastly DECREASED while bad people with firearms (a bad thing that is already illegal many different ways) are not decreased at all
Click to expand...

To me, it would seem more than logical that if a city or rural area had more restrictions on gun ownership, fewer people would want to own a gun and therefore be easy targets. Using that logic, homicides would increase.
Reading the vast amount of material given to me by my neighbor, indicates that the anti-gun mantra is a lot of emotional hysteria.
 
Mario said:
Using the population of the US, as a guide for this, good vs. evil, I'd say the highlighted above, is the most logical scenario.



Haaaaa.....I get it. Thanks



To me, it would seem more than logical that if a city or rural area had more restrictions on gun ownership, fewer people would want to own a gun and therefore be easy targets. Using that logic, homicides would increase.
Reading the vast amount of material given to me by my neighbor, indicates that the anti-gun mantra is a lot of emotional hysteria.
Click to expand...

the real problem is that CRIME CONTROL is really not what motivates the leaders of the bannerrhoid movement.

the real motivations are as follows

1) for many politicians-the real goal is to be able to tell slow witted voters that these politicians are DOING SOMETHING to alleviate crime or deal with the latest well publicized massacre by pushing gun control laws. The Democrat party did this rather commonly in the 1960s when Nixon accused them of being soft on crime. Gun control was a strategy the Dems came up with to pretend they were tough on crime while not upsetting a major constituency (urban blacks) who saw calls for "crackdowns on street crime" to be thinly veiled attacks on blacks (and they had some merit in such a belief)

2) in addition to pandering to the public over demands to do something about crime, many of the leaders of the left see the NRA as a major league enemy-an enemy their own party created when the Dems started attacking gun owners and gun rights as a way to pretend the dems were serious about crime control. many gun control schemes are nothing more than obvious attempts to attack the NRA and make the NRA and other pro gun groups defend turf these pro rights groups have already won.
These dem leaders push crap like magazine limits or bans on commonly owned firearms hoping to bleed the NRA of money. Some of these gun control leaders have become so hostile towards the NRA and gun owners, they push gun bans purely to punish these groups.

I don't believe most of the BM politicians are so stupid to believe that criminals-who already cannot own firearms legally and who will suffer severe consequences from committing armed robbery, forcible rape, or murder-are going to be deterred by a gun control law
 
Very interesting. Thanks
 
TurtleDude said:
the real problem is that CRIME CONTROL is really not what motivates the leaders of the bannerrhoid movement.

the real motivations are as follows

1) for many politicians-the real goal is to be able to tell slow witted voters that these politicians are DOING SOMETHING to alleviate crime or deal with the latest well publicized massacre by pushing gun control laws. The Democrat party did this rather commonly in the 1960s when Nixon accused them of being soft on crime. Gun control was a strategy the Dems came up with to pretend they were tough on crime while not upsetting a major constituency (urban blacks) who saw calls for "crackdowns on street crime" to be thinly veiled attacks on blacks (and they had some merit in such a belief)

2) in addition to pandering to the public over demands to do something about crime, many of the leaders of the left see the NRA as a major league enemy-an enemy their own party created when the Dems started attacking gun owners and gun rights as a way to pretend the dems were serious about crime control. many gun control schemes are nothing more than obvious attempts to attack the NRA and make the NRA and other pro gun groups defend turf these pro rights groups have already won.
These dem leaders push crap like magazine limits or bans on commonly owned firearms hoping to bleed the NRA of money. Some of these gun control leaders have become so hostile towards the NRA and gun owners, they push gun bans purely to punish these groups.

I don't believe most of the BM politicians are so stupid to believe that criminals-who already cannot own firearms legally and who will suffer severe consequences from committing armed robbery, forcible rape, or murder-are going to be deterred by a gun control law
Click to expand...

That is the problem with people they actually think gun control means what it says. Here is an organisation that lies about everything else and can be believed to tell what they really want, our rights, security, safety and most important our liberty. Is anyone in doubt that the purpose of gun control is to place citizens in a position where any government can control them without opposition? Gun control has nothing to do with guns per say, crime or public safety. It has everything to do with creating dependants on government unable or to frightened to object to any government.
 
One could argue that no gun control would not make any difference as there is no causal link but that a decrease in crime can be expected as criminals realise people are armed and willing to fight back. Deterrence due to fear of injury is not related to the lack of a causal relationship between crime and guns.
 
Fritz said:
That is why I am against banning guns. However, gun control is a lose-lose situation; if you restrict guns more strongly, less guns will be in the hands of people but some will still be killed by the guns that slip by. Allowing more guns will still kill people, but the wild card is if you get lucky and the vast majority of gun owners have no mental issues or homicidal tendencies, all is good. That is why gun policies are lose-lose situations, for a gun can land in the hands of anyone, no matter what.
Click to expand...

Banning is deprivation of all and restrictions are deprivation of some. When it comes to guns there is absolutely no reason anyone should be deprived unless they are not responsible for their actions. Therefore restrictions are just a lesser form of a total restriction or a ban. BTW bans are never total either, government will never disarm itself and criminals cannot ever be disarmed or deprived.

Examples Alcohol, Drugs, Pornography.......... no ban has ever worked, a lesser form therefore cannot work either.

Worked = reducing crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increasing public safety.

It is not possible to make citizens safer by removing guns from the victims of crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom