• 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!

Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down

YouTube is what you make of it. It's possible to find accurate fact based informative videos by certified experts. You can also find farts being light or dogs purring like cats. The ultimate viewers choice.
 
zsu2357 said:
No,you would rather get it from MSNBC and the like. You might try you tube,why hell you might even learn something.
Click to expand...

YouTube........your source for accurate scholarly research. Lol
 
DebateChallenge said:
Common Arguments For Gun Control Shot Down
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RDu0YDeqNk
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.

Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities

2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."

3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.

4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.

5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!

6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.

7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!

Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)
 
Last edited:
Slavister said:
Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.
Click to expand...
- in this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so until and unless a person does commit a crime and its been proven in court they shouldn't be treated like criminals.
- convicted criminals are barred from buying or owning all guns including AR-15/SA weapons so they are not going to have an easier time getting them since to buy guns including those you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal.

Slavister said:
Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities
Click to expand...
- As he said, the tool is not the problem
- If that's the case than handguns should be less regulated since handguns are less powerful weapons. A rifle or shotgun is much more powerful and much more likely to kill than a handgun. And while I don't think any kind of gun on the civilian market should be more restricted, I would be all for having rifles and shotguns more restricted if as a tradeoff handguns became less restricted. Personally I would like it if handguns and long guns swapped restrictions although ideally both would be less restricted.
Slavister said:
2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."
Click to expand...
If you understand how magazines and magazine fed guns work than you should know that banning high capacity magazines would be pointless in stopping or lessoning mass shootings. It takes a split second to slap in a new magazine once you shoot out all the bullets in the first magazine. And besides mass shooters don't use those really high capacity magazines, such as those 100 round drums since they're prone to malfunctions. Banning high capacity magazines will only inconvenience law abiding people that like to use guns for lawful purposes.

Slavister said:
3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.
Click to expand...
Most guns used in crime are gotten illegally so whether or not guns used in crimes in Chicago actually came from Chicago doesn't matter since the vast majority of them were illegally obtained anyway whether they were from Chicago or Indiana or anywhere else. So this means we should enforce existing gun laws instead of tightening them. If the gun laws in Indiana were well enforced than the criminals who commit gun crime in Chicago wouldn't be able to get the guns in Indiana that they used to commit the crimes with. On the other hand, if Chicago was more gun friendly like Indiana than that would give law abiding people a good method of fighting back against criminals and so it would cut down on crime in Chicago.

Slavister said:
4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.
Click to expand...
No, violence without guns can sometimes be worse than gun violence and often it is. For instance, bombings kill far more many people than shootings. Arson can kill more people than shootings. Vehicle assaults can kill more people, or at least just as many people, as shootings.
 
Slavister said:
5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!
Click to expand...
Key word maybe. And violent crime could stay at its same level or most likely it would go up since law abiding people would be disarmed. And as I said before, violent crime without guns can be just as bad or worse as violent crime with guns.

Slavister said:
6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.
Click to expand...
You do understand the Australia ban, don't you? All they did was ban semi automatic rifles and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns. Im not sure how often such weapons are or were used in violent crime in Australia but if violent crime did decline in Australia it was not because of the ban because if criminals didn't have access to such weapons they would just use other means. Of course criminals would no doubt access such weapons illegally since they're criminals. As for suicide declining, making guns harder to get will not affect the suicide rate since Japan has among the strictest gun controls in the world and also among the highest suicide rate.

Slavister said:
7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with you about 18 year olds not being able to buy guns voting for Republicans not Democrats since Republicans believe more in gun rights. If you ask me though, at the age of 18 you should be able to buy any kind of gun that you can buy at 21 including handguns since at 18 you can serve in the army.

Slavister said:
Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)
Click to expand...
If you're going to look at all homicides than you also have to look at the method of homicide. Not all homicides are with guns.
 
DebateChallenge said:
- in this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty so until and unless a person does commit a crime and its been proven in court they shouldn't be treated like criminals.
Click to expand...

Nor would they be. "Gun control" laws, if passed, would not treat anyone like criminals. Just like the law not allowing ownership of pre-86 FA weapons does not treat law-abiding like criminals. Just because you can't own a nuke also does not mean you are treated like a criminal.

DebateChallenge said:
- convicted criminals are barred from buying or owning all guns including AR-15/SA weapons so they are not going to have an easier time getting them since to buy guns including those you have to go through a background check to see if you're a criminal.
Click to expand...

The more guns are out there the easier it is for criminals to get their hands on them. From stealing to borrowing.

DebateChallenge said:
As he said, the tool is not the problem
Click to expand...

Tool by itself is not a problem. Its widespread availability to everyone is.

DebateChallenge said:
If that's the case than handguns should be less regulated since handguns are less powerful weapons. A rifle or shotgun is much more powerful and much more likely to kill than a handgun. And while I don't think any kind of gun on the civilian market should be more restricted, I would be all for having rifles and shotguns more restricted if as a tradeoff handguns became less restricted. Personally I would like it if handguns and long guns swapped restrictions although ideally both would be less restricted.
Click to expand...

I would guess handguns are more dangerous overall because it's much easier to sneak them in or carry around without others noticing. It's not only about power of weapon itself but also about how likely it would be used as deadly force.

DebateChallenge said:
If you understand how magazines and magazine fed guns work than you should know that banning high capacity magazines would be pointless in stopping or lessoning mass shootings. It takes a split second to slap in a new magazine once you shoot out all the bullets in the first magazine. And besides mass shooters don't use those really high capacity magazines, such as those 100 round drums since they're prone to malfunctions. Banning high capacity magazines will only inconvenience law abiding people that like to use guns for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

You might be right. I have not looked into what research shows on this particular point, if anything. That's not what the "expert" was talking about though. And I was pointing out what's wrong with the expert opinion expressed.

DebateChallenge said:
Most guns used in crime are gotten illegally so whether or not guns used in crimes in Chicago actually came from Chicago doesn't matter since the vast majority of them were illegally obtained anyway whether they were from Chicago or Indiana or anywhere else. So this means we should enforce existing gun laws instead of tightening them. If the gun laws in Indiana were well enforced than the criminals who commit gun crime in Chicago wouldn't be able to get the guns in Indiana that they used to commit the crimes with.
Click to expand...

Some laws are simply too hard to enforce. If you allow guns all over the place, it's hard to enforce any kind of illegal ownership of them. That's why Chicago / Illinois are having problems despite themselves restricting the ownership.

DebateChallenge said:
On the other hand, if Chicago was more gun friendly like Indiana than that would give law abiding people a good method of fighting back against criminals and so it would cut down on crime in Chicago.
Click to expand...

This directly contradicts research on the subject. Here is just one of many studies: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides."

DebateChallenge said:
No, violence without guns can sometimes be worse than gun violence and often it is. For instance, bombings kill far more many people than shootings. Arson can kill more people than shootings. Vehicle assaults can kill more people, or at least just as many people, as shootings.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why in US, where all those methods are available to killers' disposal, most killers prefer guns to all those other methods... by far... because guns are much more suitable for the purpose.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Key word maybe. And violent crime could stay at its same level or most likely it would go up since law abiding people would be disarmed. And as I said before, violent crime without guns can be just as bad or worse as violent crime with guns.
Click to expand...

Most research shows there is no maybe. (and I already responded to your other points in previous post where you made them earlier)

DebateChallenge said:
You do understand the Australia ban, don't you? All they did was ban semi automatic rifles and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns.
Click to expand...

Do you know what they did? They did quite a bit more than what you just said, including adopting new licensing requirements, establishing a national firearms registry, instituting a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases, and purchasing a bunch of firearms to further limit the circulation of available weapons.

DebateChallenge said:
Im not sure how often such weapons are or were used in violent crime in Australia but if violent crime did decline in Australia it was not because of the ban because if criminals didn't have access to such weapons they would just use other means. Of course criminals would no doubt access such weapons illegally since they're criminals.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking perhaps? You keep ignoring all the research that says otherwise.

If you want some simple explanations...
Criminals cannot steal guns from someone who does not have them.
Criminals cannot borrow guns from family / friends if they don't have them.
Neighbor's kid cannot become a criminal by getting his parents' gun if they don't have them.
Angry coworker cannot get guns without black market connections and having to meet with criminals and thus is less likely to shoot up an office.
Your law-abiding but disturbed neighbor can't in a fit of anger grab his gun and shoot your son if they don't have a gun handy.

DebateChallenge said:
As for suicide declining, making guns harder to get will not affect the suicide rate since Japan has among the strictest gun controls in the world and also among the highest suicide rate.
Click to expand...

Japan has cultural reasons for high suicide rate. You cannot compare things in vacuum. A huge number of suicide decisions in US are done within 5 minutes of the suicide attempt. Availability of gun makes suicide that much more likely in such circumstances. People that study this stuff try to avoid exactly the pitfalls like you are falling into, i.e. to control for other variables that you are not aware of or forgot about or dismissed.

DebateChallenge said:
I would have to agree with you about 18 year olds not being able to buy guns voting for Republicans not Democrats since Republicans believe more in gun rights.
Click to expand...

Glad we agree on something :-)... that "expert" did not make much sense.

DebateChallenge said:
If you're going to look at all homicides than you also have to look at the method of homicide. Not all homicides are with guns.
Click to expand...

That does not invalidate the point. Studies show that this age group is dangerous. So it makes sense to limit their access to guns.
 
Last edited:
zsu2357 said:
Yeah. It shows that some people can be dumb asses. Flash. Not all people are even close.
Click to expand...

What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.
 
Slavister said:
Ok, I'll bite. Point by point break down between Fox's Tucker Carlson (blah! not surprising) and "firearms attorney":

1. Ban of ar-15/semi-automatic rifles would not stop shootings

Evidence exhibit A: "criminals don't obey laws"
What he got wrong:
- some shooters were NOT criminals PRIOR to these acts.
- criminals would have harder time getting mass killing machines.

Evidence exhibit B: 4 example crimes (one was not even a shooting) that did not involve AR-15/SA weapons.
What he got wrong:
- there are plenty of the examples that DID involve these weapons
- use of less powerful weapons in such mass shootings would have likely resulted in less fatalities

2. Banning high-capacity magazines would not help stop the carnage

Evidence exhibit C: 1994 ban did not work
What he got wrong: noone knows if it actually would have worked. It was too small of a ban and grandfathered too many guns already in circulation. Fact check:
"Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004."

3. Places with stricter gun conrol laws are NOT safer.
Evidence exhibit D: Chicago has string laws and high crime
What he got wrong: While Chicago & Illinois have strict laws, neighboring states (Wisconsin and Indiana) have very weak gun control laws and state lines of course don't have any kind of real border control. Unsurprisingly, this study found that a ton of new guns in Chicago come from other states. Most come from Indiana. To compare, 82% of guns recovered in crimes in Indiana itself came from Indiana itself. Chances are it would be even worse in Chicago if it weren't for the gun control laws.

4. You should try to stop all violence not just gun violence.
What he got wrong: Violence without guns is not as deadly as gun violence.

5. Yes, maybe use of guns will go down in crimes if you ban them.
Oh look, he got this one right!

6. In Australia, violent crimes went up after a ban.
What he got wrong: More importantly, number of people killed did not really go up but instead went down over time. Effect of enacted laws takes time, even years indeed. There is nothing wrong with that. Guns won't just disappear the next morning after the law is passed. Overall effect in Australia clearly supports gun control side of the argument: overall homicides were about the same for a few years and then have come down, as one would expect. Further, firearm related deaths in Australia dropped faster, in part because suicides have come down a lot (in other words, a lawful citizen returning their gun is less likely to shoot themselves in moment of despair). Yes, it takes longer for criminal activity to curtail than for suicides but both benefit from gun control, just at different rates.

7. Increasing age of gun purchase to 21 won't make a difference
Evidence exhibit E: Democrats want younger voters
What he got wrong: How does that even make sense? If 18 year olds cannot buy guns they will start voting for Democrats? If anything, that should help Republicans!

Evidence exhibit F: Raising age to 21 would not have stopped 29 of the "top 30" shootings.
What he got wrong: There is much more relevant data than cherry-picking 30 shootings. How about looking at all homicides? Here are some examples from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
- "Approximately a third (34%) of murder victims and almost half (49%) of the offenders were under age 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaked in the 18 to 24 year-old age group at 17.1 victims per 100,000 and 29.3 offenders per 100,000." (source)
- "Young people age 16-24 consistently have the highest violent crime rates." (source)
- "From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide." (source)
Click to expand...

Very well done. The only problem is - you're confusing 'em with facts.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Well yes, and there's also this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI9tov6A2DI
Click to expand...

Shall I whip out the video wherein a small women working behind a liquor store counter beats an armed robber and chases him away? Or maybe the story wherein a lone unarmed guy wrestles an AR15 out of the hands of a maniac in fast food restaurant saving everybody's lives?

Your logic is failed and flawed.
 
jet57 said:
What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.
Click to expand...

jet wants to ban guns from honest people before they do anything wrong even though the percentages of honest legal gun owners using a gun to murder is statistically non-existent. in reality-jet's main goal is to prevent those of us who live in non-banner states from owning guns his masters in California don't trust him to own
 
jet57 said:
Shall I whip out the video wherein a small women working behind a liquor store counter beats an armed robber and chases him away? Or maybe the story wherein a lone unarmed guy wrestles an AR15 out of the hands of a maniac in fast food restaurant saving everybody's lives?

Your logic is failed and flawed.
Click to expand...

You should go bear hunting with your bare hands-I heard a report that some guy managed to kill a grizzly unarmed. Since he could do it-you can too. Picking aberrant actions to apply to everyone else is just plain stupid. we get the fact you are mad other people can own AR 15s with 30 round NORMAL capacity mags.
 
jet57 said:
What it shows is exactly why guns need to be heavily regulated: do we need to get into mass shootings perpetrated by law abiding citizens, or are you ready to just stop - now.
Click to expand...

How are law abiding citizens perpetrating mass shootings?
 
MACS-24 said:
How are law abiding citizens perpetrating mass shootings?
Click to expand...

jet has claimed "we need to ban AR 15s until we get a handle on mass shootings"

talk about a fraudulent argument. tire irons are used to kill more americans than AR 15s
 
TurtleDude said:
jet has claimed "we need to ban AR 15s until we get a handle on mass shootings"

talk about a fraudulent argument. tire irons are used to kill more americans than AR 15s
Click to expand...

I'm quite baffled how jet thinks "mass shootings" (murders?) is a lawful activity.
 
MACS-24 said:
I'm quite baffled how jet thinks "mass shootings" (murders?) is a lawful activity.
Click to expand...

gun banners think supporting gun rights is the real crime so they tend to be rather silly on actually understanding what is lawful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom