• 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 the best arguments against gun control?

vegas giants said:
The VPC distributes its published research and analysis to members of Congress and their staffs. Numerous US gun control organizations have used VPC reports and terminology to advance local and national gun control initiatives.[32] VPC research results and policy positions have been cited by major news organizations including The New York Times,[18][27] The Washington Post,[28] the Chicago Tribune,[29] CNN,[33][34] the Associated Press,[6][35] and Reuters
Click to expand...
Again, you're still talking gross generalizations. What specific laws do high-murder states lack that low murder rate states have? What distinguishes a "lax" state from a none lax state? This whole argument hinges on a vague, subjective lax vs no-lax paradigm.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Lets say somebody buys a gun legally and has it registered as required by law. They then sell it to a criminal who uses it to kill somebody. Sure, with registration they would be able to trace it back to the original purchaser and charge him but the fact remains that the straw purchase already occurred and the damage has already been done and there's nothing they can do to bring the victim back.
Click to expand...

Should be like cars, if you sell the car to someone you transfer the title to the other owner. THat should happen for guns.
 
jimbo said:
Shall not be infringed is the only argument necessary.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. What is meant by infringed? Why is it OK to ban guns on planes, court rooms, prisons, etc? Why are mentally ill people and felons banned from having it? Why is it already legal to ban particular firearms. Even SCOTUS says the 2nd amendment doesn't mean unlimited access to all guns that can be brought everywhere
 
Bullseye said:
That's a very good point. Restrictionists embrace the broad brush approach to control issues. IMHO there are more than enough laws on the books to control guns, we need to focus on the intentional violators and those who obtain guns because of lax performance. Although the Las Vegas shooter is still wrapped in mystery most of the other mass shooting perps waived more than enough red flags, had someone taken action on them.
Click to expand...

gun laws that only change what honest people can own or do ("assault weapon bans" waiting periods , licenses, magazine limits, etc) are not designed to impact criminals since criminals are already banned from owning any firearms. Rather those controls are dishonestly touted as crime control but they do EXACTLY what their left wing proponents want-to harass legal gun ownership because most honest people obey the law. The only way to impact criminals is to punish them when they misuse guns but liberals are far more reticent to do that than passing crap that impedes legal gun ownership
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Should be like cars, if you sell the car to someone you transfer the title to the other owner. THat should happen for guns.
Click to expand...

that stupid idea has worked well for narcotics. do you gun haters forget history constantly?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
No it isn't. What is meant by infringed? Why is it OK to ban guns on planes, court rooms, prisons, etc? Why are mentally ill people and felons banned from having it? Why is it already legal to ban particular firearms. Even SCOTUS says the 2nd amendment doesn't mean unlimited access to all guns that can be brought everywhere
Click to expand...

its funny how gun banners always look to restrict a negative restriction on government while looking to expand their own rights in other areas.
 
TurtleDude said:
that stupid idea has worked well for narcotics. do you gun haters forget history constantly?
Click to expand...

That argument is the dumbest argument ever if you can even call it that. OMG< people break laws, hell, lets get rid of all laws. Hey, there are laws against murder, yet people still murder. WHy bother having laws against it. No speed limits, since irresonsible people break it. how do you not realize that argument is completely retarded? You probably do, you just don't actually have facts, logic and reasoning against gun control measures. That is evident in this thread with nothing but dumb one line talking points and deflections from all the arguments that destroy it
 
Sampson Simpson said:
No it isn't. What is meant by infringed? Why is it OK to ban guns on planes, court rooms, prisons, etc? Why are mentally ill people and felons banned from having it? Why is it already legal to ban particular firearms. Even SCOTUS says the 2nd amendment doesn't mean unlimited access to all guns that can be brought everywhere
Click to expand...
Because, almost from the start it has been recognized that rights are not absolute, nor could they be - if your exercise of a right infringes on one of mine who takes precedence. The assumption has always been that rights must be exercised responsibly - I'm sure you've heard the famous "no right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
That argument is the dumbest argument ever if you can even call it that. OMG< people break laws, hell, lets get rid of all laws. Hey, there are laws against murder, yet people still murder. WHy bother having laws against it. No speed limits, since irresonsible people break it. how do you not realize that argument is completely retarded? You probably do, you just don't actually have facts, logic and reasoning against gun control measures. That is evident in this thread with nothing but dumb one line talking points and deflections from all the arguments that destroy it
Click to expand...

you, like other gun banners, don't get it. You want to pass laws that ONLY, and I repeat ONLY, harass honest gun owners. Rather than punish criminals who use guns to harm others, you want to pass laws that only impact people who honestly own and buy guns. Why is that? I used to think it was due to ignorance on the part of gun haters. I was wrong. Its due to the fact your really goal is harassing gun owners. That is why almost all the anti gun advocates are left wingers. You all hate the way avid gun owners vote. You hate a culture that rejects the creeping crud of collectivism and more government that the anti gun politicians promote.
 
Bullseye said:
Because, almost from the start it has been recognized that rights are not absolute, nor could they be - if your exercise of a right infringes on one of mine who takes precedence. The assumption has always been that rights must be exercised responsibly - I'm sure you've heard the famous "no right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" example.
Click to expand...


Gun banners dishonestly confuse USE restrictions on POSSESSION bans. Screaming fire with the intent to cause panic is illegal, but you certainly possess the ability to scream fire if there is a fire or if you are in a vacant room with no one to hear you. The liberal laws would ban you from ever being able to yell fire no matter what. EVERYTHING you can do with gun that wrongfully harms others is already ILLEGAL. those who have been adjudicated a danger to have guns, face federal felonies with 5+ years in prison for merely possessing a firearm. It is a federal felony to provide a person you know or SHOULD know is a prohibited person. Its illegal for people with carry permits to carry firearms in many areas

yet the gun banners want more laws-why-because they want to harass gun owners.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Should be like cars, if you sell the car to someone you transfer the title to the other owner. THat should happen for guns.
Click to expand...
To what end? What do you see as the value of registration?
 
VanceMack said:
To what end? What do you see as the value of registration?
Click to expand...

to help confiscate firearms when the Democrats get enough bannerhoid politicians and dishonest judges in office
 
JC Axe said:
I've been looking to make my analysis of the most common / most convincing arguments against gun control in order to write a follow up to an article I wrote recently (available here: 19 Years on From the Columbine School Massacre, What Has Changed? | The Urban Twist).

So far, I've been presented with the following arguments which stand in favour of the second amendment:

• Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
• If guns are banned, it will push guns into the hands of criminals.
• Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed.
• Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away.
• An armed civilian population prevents dictatorships from forming.
• Gun crime prevents domestic violence.
• Guns save more people than they kill.
• The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.
• Switzerland has lots of guns and very little crime.
• More people die from opiates than gun crime.
• Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so.
• The NRA says that from 1991 to 2012, the murder fell by half while the number of semi-automatic guns rose by 50 million

Does anyone have any stronger arguments than these? Or can anybody expand on them, or argue against them?
Click to expand...

Only armed citizens can insist on their rights. All others are mere subjects.

There will probably not be an LEO on the scene when the crime goes down. Law enforcement is reactive; they act after the crime has been committed. You are the only person legally responsible for defending your life.

Kansas recently enacted a law that says businesses, government buildings, etc., must either allow individual carry or provide security in their establishment. Our branch library, for instance, now has an armed LEO and a metal detector, so they posted the building "gun free". No guns allowed. I'm OK with that; they accepted responsibility for my defense. If I am killed while visiting that library I told my wife to sue them for negligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom