• 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!

2 Ohio Cops Killed by Gunman

jdog21 said:
Its all about control. Get people to vote away their rights or vote against something that in their best intrest by playing quickly on an emtional event. If they let facts come out and open things up for debates most gun control agruements fall flat and people wont vote the way they want them to.
Click to expand...

The fact is too many nuts have guns, and one such nut just killed two cops with one of those guns.
 
Rucker61 said:
So what is your solution, clam?
Click to expand...

Fewer guns, more laws restricting who can buy them, registration of all guns so we can track who is selling them illegally.

What's yours? Do nothing and vilify those who are trying to restrict guns?
 
calamity said:
Fewer guns, more laws restricting who can buy them, registration of all guns so we can track who is selling them illegally.

What's yours? Do nothing and vilify those who are trying to restrict guns?
Click to expand...

How do you suggest to get to fewer guns?
How successful do you expect registration to be given the failures in NY, CT and Canada?
We already know that straw purchases and FFL diversions are de facto registered to the seller yet that doesn't seem to stop them.

My suggestions,
1. Direct access to NICS for private sales.
2. Enforce the law against 4473 offenses. Less that 0.02% of those caught committing that felony get convicted.
3. Enforce the punishments for straw purchases.
4. Reduce or eliminate plea bargaining for gun crimes and violations.
 
Rucker61 said:
How do you suggest to get to fewer guns?
How successful do you expect registration to be given the failures in NY, CT and Canada?
We already know that straw purchases and FFL diversions are de facto registered to the seller yet that doesn't seem to stop them.

My suggestions,
1. Direct access to NICS for private sales.
2. Enforce the law against 4473 offenses. Less that 0.02% of those caught committing that felony get convicted.
3. Enforce the punishments for straw purchases.
4. Reduce or eliminate plea bargaining for gun crimes and violations.
Click to expand...

I'd go further--unless you report it stolen, if you have a gun in your name that ends up being used in a crime, you do time. No ifs ands or buts.
 
calamity said:
I'd go further--unless you report it stolen, if you have a gun in your name that ends up being used in a crime, you do time. No ifs ands or buts.
Click to expand...

There has to be a trial first, right? Of course the consequences of this law work against your desire to have all guns registered. Lawful gun owners will already report there stolen guns so that the insurance will pay for them. You should talk about doing time to the judges in the straw purchase cases of Jalita Johnson and Daytron Mills.
 
Rucker61 said:
There has to be a trial first, right? Of course the consequences of this law work against your desire to have all guns registered. Lawful gun owners will already report there stolen guns so that the insurance will pay for them. You should talk about doing time to the judges in the straw purchase cases of Jalita Johnson and Daytron Mills.
Click to expand...

No, it ads risk to owning a gun. If you own one, and it ends up in the wrong hands---Jail. If you are caught with one which is not registered--jail. All good measures to get some gun control which works.
 
calamity said:
No, it ads risk to owning a gun. If you own one, and it ends up in the wrong hands---Jail. If you are caught with one which is not registered--jail. All good measures to get some gun control which works.
Click to expand...

It violates the Constitution, so I don't think this suggestion will pass muster. You do know that a felon can't even be charged with failing to register a gun, right?
 
Rucker61 said:
It violates the Constitution, so I don't think this suggestion will pass muster. You do know that a felon can't even be charged with failing to register a gun, right?
Click to expand...

That should be changed. And, like I said, if a gun owner "loses" his gun and it ends up being a murder weapon, I'd hit him with accessory to that murder. That would immediately lower the number of guns being sold loosely on the street.
 
calamity said:
That should be changed. And, like I said, if a gun owner "loses" his gun and it ends up being a murder weapon, I'd hit him with accessory to that murder. That would immediately lower the number of guns being sold loosely on the street.
Click to expand...

To change that you're going to have to get a case before SCOTUS to overturn Haynes v United States. Perhaps there are easier steps to take first. You may wish to charge a gun owner who loses a gun with accessory to murder, but the DA's who run for office based on their success record like to pursue cases that they can win.
 
Rucker61 said:
To change that you're going to have to get a case before SCOTUS to overturn Haynes v United States. Perhaps there are easier steps to take first. You may wish to charge a gun owner who loses a gun with accessory to murder, but the DA's who run for office based on their success record like to pursue cases that they can win.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the D tried to pass a law holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction their guns cause. Gun zealots made sure that law never stuck. Hence, my distaste for gun zealotry.
 
calamity said:
That should be changed. And, like I said, if a gun owner "loses" his gun and it ends up being a murder weapon, I'd hit him with accessory to that murder. That would immediately lower the number of guns being sold loosely on the street.
Click to expand...

irrational nonsense.
 
calamity said:
IIRC, the D tried to pass a law holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction their guns cause. Gun zealots made sure that law never stuck. Hence, my distaste for gun zealotry.
Click to expand...

that suggested law was idiotic. and you know it. You just hate gun owners due to their support of Trump. If a gun maker sells to a licensed wholesaler who sells to a licensed dealer who then sells to someone who passes a background check-why should the maker of that gun be liable if that gun is later used in a crime? rational responses only please
 
calamity said:
IIRC, the D tried to pass a law holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction their guns cause. Gun zealots made sure that law never stuck. Hence, my distaste for gun zealotry.
Click to expand...

That precedent would allow anyone to sue automobile makes for accidents, liquor manufacturers for alcohol related deaths and home manufacturers for deaths from falling down the stairs. Gun manufacturers don't make guns for criminals. They don't sell them to criminals. There is no logical reason to hold them liable for illegal actions taken by others. The intent, of course, is to shut down the industry, to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to exercise their 2A rights. It's like that movement to require gun owners to get liability insurance for their guns, even though the insurance industry is on record stating that they will not pay out for deliberate acts like murder and suicide, rendering the insurance useful for its stated purpose but making it more expensive for law abiding citizens to own guns.
 
calamity said:
No. You sell a gun and it gets used in a crime, you get charged. Simple and effective.
Click to expand...

so if I sell it to someone who passes background check, I would be liable if that person-five years later kills someone? or to someone I know has a valid CCW permit?
 
Rucker61 said:
That precedent would allow anyone to sue automobile makes for accidents, liquor manufacturers for alcohol related deaths and home manufacturers for deaths from falling down the stairs. Gun manufacturers don't make guns for criminals. They don't sell them to criminals. There is no logical reason to hold them liable for illegal actions taken by others. The intent, of course, is to shut down the industry, to prevent law abiding citizens from being able to exercise their 2A rights. It's like that movement to require gun owners to get liability insurance for their guns, even though the insurance industry is on record stating that they will not pay out for deliberate acts like murder and suicide, rendering the insurance useful for its stated purpose but making it more expensive for law abiding citizens to own guns.
Click to expand...

he's mad about the election and is lashing out again since he cannot get over the results. its idiotic.
 
calamity said:
IIRC, the D tried to pass a law holding gun manufacturers liable for the destruction their guns cause. Gun zealots made sure that law never stuck. Hence, my distaste for gun zealotry.
Click to expand...

The reason why that is a stupid law is the same reason why you wouldn't hold Ford liable for the drunk drivers that caused havoc.
 
calamity said:
No. You sell a gun and it gets used in a crime, you get charged. Simple and effective.
Click to expand...

OK you aren't interested in rational solutions. Your stupid argument is the same that if I sell my car to someone nd they drive drunk and kill others, I am responsible.
 
TurtleDude said:
OK you aren't interested in rational solutions. Your stupid argument is the same that if I sell my car to someone nd they drive drunk and kill others, I am responsible.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking cars. Just guns. And, yes. You sell a gun, you better be damned sure it won't be used in a crime, because in my world, you'd be charged with being an accessory to that crime if it was.
 
calamity said:
I'm not talking cars. Just guns. And, yes. You sell a gun, you better be damned sure it won't be used in a crime, because in my world, you'd be charged with being an accessory to that crime if it was.
Click to expand...

what do you think someone might do if they were told they would go to jail because a gun they sold to someone years ago was now used in a crime

Your stupid solution has no chance of passing and demonstrates your real motivation has nothing to do with crime control,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom