• 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!

How do we keep...

Rucker61 said:
Exactly what laws do you wish to impose upon the American people? Be specific.
Click to expand...

I have already mentioned them in previous posts.

Put simply. Legislation that is adapted from that of Australia, Canada, Japan, UK, India. This is legislation which removes firearms (at least significantly diminishes the number) from citizens. This is through i) stricter legislation limiting the types of firearms allowed and limiting who and how one is obtained ii) implementing something similar to Australia's buy back scheme. This also means stricter and longer processes to obtain a firearm, this eliminates those who "just have a firearm" because they wanted one.
 
goldkam said:
There is a distinction drawn. There are citizens who have a firearm because they 'like' firearms. Then there are citizens who have firearms for their employment. There is a difference between employment and general daily life. Aren't those in the army just 'everyday' citizens and your criticising the government for giving them firearms in war zones???
Click to expand...
you are unable to understand the difference between the military engaged in military action vs Civilian police engaged in domestic law enforcement?
 
goldkam said:
So your saying a world with firearms is safer for citizens than a world with out, even though firearms have a proven unsafe track record. Children aged 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the USA than any other developed country yet you pose having guns is safer. The chance of suicide is increased when a gun is present, yet you argue guns are safer....
Click to expand...

that's a really stupid question since there is never going to be a world without weapons. what you want is a world where only criminals and the government is armed. Why are you so afraid of suicide?
 
goldkam said:
I have already mentioned them in previous posts.

Put simply. Legislation that is adapted from that of Australia, Canada, Japan, UK, India. This is legislation which removes firearms (at least significantly diminishes the number) from citizens. This is through i) stricter legislation limiting the types of firearms allowed and limiting who and how one is obtained ii) implementing something similar to Australia's buy back scheme. This also means stricter and longer processes to obtain a firearm, this eliminates those who "just have a firearm" because they wanted one.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't start with legislation. This would have to start with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That would require 2/3 of both House of Congress to vote for such an repeal and for 3/4 of the 50 states to ratify that repeal. In practical terms: find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

None of the countries you mention had a significant gun culture, and the number of guns confiscated was minuscule in scale compared to the task you suggest that the US attempt.
 
Captain Adverse said:
To those who want to keep guns out of "the wrong hands," the idea is simple...figure out a way to keep guns out of everyone's hands who is not a serving member of the armed or police forces of the nation.
Click to expand...
And just because somebody is in the armed forces or the police forces doesn't mean their hands are not "the wrong hands." You have psychopaths and criminals in every walk of life and sure, it might be harder for them to be in the armed forces of the police forces due to screening but they slip through. This idea says that only the government should have guns, which is foolhardy because the true government in the USA is We The People, the common citizens. We tell the government what it can and can't do not the other way around.
 
OlNate said:
Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to close up the loopholes in private gun sales.

The existing laws are more than fine - in fact, if the law is that people with ANY mental health issues can't have guns, I'd say that's too arbitrary. I have wicked bad anxiety, but am no threat to anyone. There's a mile of difference between treated and untreated. But, if you have private gun sellers that aren't paying attention to those laws, and you don't want a registry to track the gun (understandable), then you need to work on the problematic areas another way.

I'm not sure I have a complete solution to this...I have ideas, but they are probably wrong, me being brought up in Canadian gun culture, not American (which means that certain things would be tolerable and unrestricting to me, but probably not to you guys - I don't assume). But I think it's what responsible, law abiding gun owners and advocates need to figure out. It's really the only gap I see.
Click to expand...

Not to argue Ole Timer....

What is your interpretation of loophole?
 
goldkam said:
So your saying a world with firearms is safer for citizens than a world with out, even though firearms have a proven unsafe track record. Children aged 5 to 14 are 11 times more likely to be killed with a gun in the USA than any other developed country yet you pose having guns is safer. The chance of suicide is increased when a gun is present, yet you argue guns are safer....
Click to expand...

Your suicide argument is just wrong.

A person bent on suicide will use whatever means available to them. Adding the gun to your argument is fluff......period.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, the very number of guns is a very real obstacle. No country has ever had to deal with more than 300 million guns. You can't ignore that.

/QUOTE]

How many countries have the population we have? I think the number of nuts with guns is a more important number. Shrinks are clearly not doing a very good job here.
Click to expand...
 
goldkam said:
Heavily regulating firearms would be a start. Australia, Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, etc... are all examples who have accentuated the effectiveness of such actions.
Blaming mental health, education (lack of it), law enforcement and terrorism has gone on for far too long and has let far to many deaths occur at the hands of a firearm. In the last 10 years over 1.1 million people have been either killed or injured at the hands of a firearm and quite simply a different approach has to be taken. However the conservative and narrow minded pro-firearm groups directed by the NRA continue to lack insight, openness and proactiveness in solving the issue. The answer is not more firearms, just like the answer is not more drugs to solve the drug crisis, or more knives to solve the knife crisis, or more bombs to solve the bombings in the Middle East.

Removing firearms does not lead to a corrupt government it highlights an effective one that does what is in the best interests of society. Not supporting and endorsing some rich business industry that brings into the economy billions of dollars and the NRA who "donates" money to government members who support their cause. That is corruption at its finest. The whole notion of disarming a population is no longer a threat it would have fit in 200 years ago when there was impending civil war and foreign invasion. On top of this it was the disarming of muskets not the high powered and dangerous firearms of today.
Click to expand...
When our enemies, domestic or foreign, are limited to muskets, that argument might work. I don't trust government, or the NRA, to always do what is right.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are unable to understand the difference between the military engaged in military action vs Civilian police engaged in domestic law enforcement?
Click to expand...

First and foremost I will repeat there is a difference between everyday citizens having firearms and then having firearms for employment purposes. There is a common between the two employment, protection because of the nature of employment and enforcement.

Firearms have been in the hands of police for centuries and it is generally accepted as part of their employment in all countries. What is not generally accepted is firearms in the hands of everyday citizens in the vast majority of countries. This is fact affirmed by academic papers, political policy, legislation etc..
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a really stupid question since there is never going to be a world without weapons. what you want is a world where only criminals and the government is armed. Why are you so afraid of suicide?
Click to expand...

So now your drawing away from firearms and putting the scope of weapons.

Of course there is going to be no world with no firearms that is fact, just like there will never be a world with no drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, road crashes, natural disasters, suicides, hate etc... but aiming for something of that nature is what drives strong, foundational and beneficial policies.

Now to your other point which has falsely claimed I have said something I actually didn't. The government always has and always will be armed, there is no indication or evidence to suggest the USA is going to fall into a tyranical government. Its merely an excuse to maintain firearms and people are so conservatively blinded by the true impact its having. By no means will the government change their future actions by knowing all US citizens are armed because you would be bring firearms to a drone, nuclear warfare, missile fight. Now I have no idea where you gained an understanding that I was wanting criminals to have firearms.

Because suicides impacts people in the lives around me daily and quite simply measures have to be put in place, at any cost, to alleviate those number. I hope you were not trying to be smart in your questioning relating to suicides, I am going to go with you were not. Just because I am optimistic.
 
goldkam said:
First and foremost I will repeat there is a difference between everyday citizens having firearms and then having firearms for employment purposes. There is a common between the two employment, protection because of the nature of employment and enforcement.

Firearms have been in the hands of police for centuries and it is generally accepted as part of their employment in all countries. What is not generally accepted is firearms in the hands of everyday citizens in the vast majority of countries. This is fact affirmed by academic papers, political policy, legislation etc..
Click to expand...

so you are saying a citizen's life is worth less when he is at home then when he is on the job. I don't give a damn what is accepted in other countries. I especially have zero use for what foreigners think we should do. Many of us own firearms and won't stand for any group-foreign or domestic, trying to take them from of us. I took an OATH twice to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and I have never disavowed that oath. Nor have millions of other Americans.
 
goldkam said:
So now your drawing away from firearms and putting the scope of weapons.

Of course there is going to be no world with no firearms that is fact, just like there will never be a world with no drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, road crashes, natural disasters, suicides, hate etc... but aiming for something of that nature is what drives strong, foundational and beneficial policies.

Now to your other point which has falsely claimed I have said something I actually didn't. The government always has and always will be armed, there is no indication or evidence to suggest the USA is going to fall into a tyranical government. Its merely an excuse to maintain firearms and people are so conservatively blinded by the true impact its having. By no means will the government change their future actions by knowing all US citizens are armed because you would be bring firearms to a drone, nuclear warfare, missile fight. Now I have no idea where you gained an understanding that I was wanting criminals to have firearms.

Because suicides impacts people in the lives around me daily and quite simply measures have to be put in place, at any cost, to alleviate those number. I hope you were not trying to be smart in your questioning relating to suicides, I am going to go with you were not. Just because I am optimistic.
Click to expand...

I really tire of ignorant people-people who don't know our laws, our customs etc, pretending they know more about guns in society than someone like me
 
goldkam said:
Heavily regulating firearms would be a start. Australia, Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand, Italy, etc... are all examples who have accentuated the effectiveness of such actions.
Click to expand...
We already do "heavily regulate firearms. Arguments like "but, Mommy, all the other countries are doing" are vapid and meaningless.

goldkam said:
Blaming mental health, education (lack of it), law enforcement and terrorism has gone on for far too long and has let far to many deaths occur at the hands of a firearm.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. More mindless regurgitation of the loony left dogma.

goldkam said:
In the last 10 years over 1.1 million people have been either killed or injured at the hands of a firearm and quite simply a different approach has to be taken.
Click to expand...
So, assuming an average population of 300 million over those ten years you're saying approximately .33% of our population has been hurt or killed at the hands of a firearm? Sounds like a real pandemic to me. :roll:

goldkem said:
However the conservative and narrow minded pro-firearm groups directed by the NRA continue to lack insight, openness and proactiveness in solving the issue. The answer is not more firearms, just like the answer is not more drugs to solve the drug crisis, or more knives to solve the knife crisis, or more bombs to solve the bombings in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
And there you go, letting go of your tenuous grip on rational argument by throwing in the labels and attacking the usual leftwing boogiemen.
goldkam said:
Removing firearms does not lead to a corrupt government it highlights an effective one that does what is in the best interests of society.
Click to expand...
Exactly what "best interest" of society is improved by wholesale violation of a Constitutional right?


goldkam said:
Not supporting and endorsing some rich business industry that brings into the economy billions of dollars and the NRA who "donates" money to government members who support their cause. That is corruption at its finest. The whole notion of disarming a population is no longer a threat it would have fit in 200 years ago when there was impending civil war and foreign invasion. On top of this it was the disarming of muskets not the high powered and dangerous firearms of today.
Click to expand...
And even more LW babble.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, it doesn't start with legislation. This would have to start with the repeal of the Second Amendment. That would require 2/3 of both House of Congress to vote for such an repeal and for 3/4 of the 50 states to ratify that repeal. In practical terms: find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

None of the countries you mention had a significant gun culture, and the number of guns confiscated was minuscule in scale compared to the task you suggest that the US attempt.
Click to expand...

Never said it started with legislation, thats part of the solution but not THE solution. What it truely starts with is American society and the attitudes expressed towards firearms. The Second Amendment is the primary problem always has been and always will be. In terms of the cost/benefit of it, the costs far outweigh the benefits derived from it. It doesn't necessarily need to be removed or changed to limit access to a firearm just like legislation in select states currently limits ownership of certain firearms or puts in place certain requirements (flimsy as they are) to obtain a firearm. No doubt the process of doing so is large and seems near impossible in todays climate particularly with the odds of attempting to alter the Second Amendment. But change is required and if we all gave up fighting for what we believe in there would be no change, reform or progress. Especially with the success of other countries and firearm legislation that everyone seems too ignorant to accept.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Your suicide argument is just wrong.

A person bent on suicide will use whatever means available to them. Adding the gun to your argument is fluff......period.
Click to expand...

False, statistics prove otherwise. But the problem is in todays society everyone is an expert. In this firearm debate everyone seems to become professional policy makers, law enforcement, mental health experts, statisticians and politicians and everyone fails to listen to those are experts in their field.

People sit at different stages of suicide and in the contemplating process. This is quite a forth front and explicit message, but the truth. If an individual has access to a firearm the chance of them ending them is far greater than with a knife etc... Research proves this. And inevitably either way the firearm is the problem and always has been the problem.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...uns-johns-hopkins-united-states-a7898951.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/3540785/us-youth-gun-suicide/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ling-themselves-more-and-more-guns/407068001/
 
UtahBill said:
When our enemies, domestic or foreign, are limited to muskets, that argument might work. I don't trust government, or the NRA, to always do what is right.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to today. The Second Amendment was implemented in the age of muskets, thus then that argument was valid.
 
goldkam said:
Never said it started with legislation, thats part of the solution but not THE solution. What it truely starts with is American society and the attitudes expressed towards firearms. The Second Amendment is the primary problem always has been and always will be. In terms of the cost/benefit of it, the costs far outweigh the benefits derived from it. It doesn't necessarily need to be removed or changed to limit access to a firearm just like legislation in select states currently limits ownership of certain firearms or puts in place certain requirements (flimsy as they are) to obtain a firearm. No doubt the process of doing so is large and seems near impossible in todays climate particularly with the odds of attempting to alter the Second Amendment. But change is required and if we all gave up fighting for what we believe in there would be no change, reform or progress. Especially with the success of other countries and firearm legislation that everyone seems too ignorant to accept.
Click to expand...

Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13. That's what it's hoping to take to get to the status of Europe. That, and centuries of being told by your betters that they know what's best for the peasants.
 
goldkam said:
Never said it started with legislation, thats part of the solution but not THE solution. What it truely starts with is American society and the attitudes expressed towards firearms. The Second Amendment is the primary problem always has been and always will be. In terms of the cost/benefit of it, the costs far outweigh the benefits derived from it. It doesn't necessarily need to be removed or changed to limit access to a firearm just like legislation in select states currently limits ownership of certain firearms or puts in place certain requirements (flimsy as they are) to obtain a firearm. No doubt the process of doing so is large and seems near impossible in todays climate particularly with the odds of attempting to alter the Second Amendment. But change is required and if we all gave up fighting for what we believe in there would be no change, reform or progress. Especially with the success of other countries and firearm legislation that everyone seems too ignorant to accept.
Click to expand...

that's your opinion that many reject. You pretend that the billions of hours of enjoyment millions of Americans derive from hunting, shooting, and collecting means nothing. And its getting really stupid this bit of yours claiming we who don't buy into a foreigner's hate of our gun rights calling us ignorant. we damn well know the issues and since our values are different than yours, you are the one whose comments display ignorance when you try to project your hatred of gun ownership upon us
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are saying a citizen's life is worth less when he is at home then when he is on the job. I don't give a damn what is accepted in other countries. I especially have zero use for what foreigners think we should do. Many of us own firearms and won't stand for any group-foreign or domestic, trying to take them from of us. I took an OATH twice to defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic and I have never disavowed that oath. Nor have millions of other Americans.
Click to expand...

I suggest you watch the two parts to this...it might insight your views a little more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0

Why are you saying a firearm is the difference between life and death. A citizens role in society is not to protect, enact a duty to enforce or anything of that nature. A citizen (and I don't care what you think in this regard) in the vast majority of other western does not require nor have a firearm for protection because it is not NORMAL. The whole world is staring at the USA scratching their heads wondering why nothing changes and why firearms are such a normality in the lives of individuals.

On the other hand a law enforcement official and the like do have a duty of protection, a duty to enforce laws and world wide it is accepted they can carry a firearm for those purposes.

And you explicit comment "I don't give a damn" just shows who you are as an individual, how little you have an open mind in relation to this situation and how unwilling you are to change or reform (you are entitled to your opinion however and I respect that) Foreigners also pay their taxes, the vast majority do due diligence when coming into the USA and respect all the laws but why should they not be allowed to have a say or be listened to when it is impacting their families, friends and their lives all the same as it could be a US citizen. Why are they less valid when they are making points that are in line with what other Americans are saying??

I have a different opinion and why should I be impacted by the the views of others......that is inevitably enabling firearms to be generally accepted and used. What would you say to the family of a child killed in a school massacre about firearms???
 
TurtleDude said:
I really tire of ignorant people-people who don't know our laws, our customs etc, pretending they know more about guns in society than someone like me
Click to expand...

You don't need to know the laws and customs of America to know their is an issue, a firearm issue which has been fuelled for decades. That very attitude is only adding fuel to the fire.
 
Bullseye said:
We already do "heavily regulate firearms. Arguments like "but, Mommy, all the other countries are doing" are vapid and meaningless.

Nonsense. More mindless regurgitation of the loony left dogma.

So, assuming an average population of 300 million over those ten years you're saying approximately .33% of our population has been hurt or killed at the hands of a firearm? Sounds like a real pandemic to me. :roll:

And there you go, letting go of your tenuous grip on rational argument by throwing in the labels and attacking the usual leftwing boogiemen.
Exactly what "best interest" of society is improved by wholesale violation of a Constitutional right?


And even more LW babble.
Click to expand...


1- I don't know what your definition of heavily regulated is but the USA is hardly "heavily" regulated when it comes to firearms. This is using rationality and other countries as a point of reference. So you call open carry allowance in public places and university campuses in the USA heavily regulated?? You call it heavily regulated allowing handgun license application to take online safety tests in Taxas?? You call the many states (Arizona, Arkansas etc) which have no magazine capacity restrictions heavily regulated?? Among the plethora of other lax firearm laws relating to registration, licensing and testing along with the lack of enforcement of the already flimsy laws.

2- So you think that mental health legislation, programs to enhance education and all the other laws put in place to limit firearm deaths have been effective?? It simply not "left dogma" its the truth, the truth is supported by statistics. Your "truth" is supported by sceptical and conservative views, with merely opinion.

3- Playing down any death seems like quite a harsh act and path to go down, quite shameful actually. The debate was quite mature and respectable until now... How about you go an tell that to the face of those families who have lost love ones at the hands of the firearm. What do you find to be an acceptable number of firearm deaths...30,000??? 10,000?? 500??

4- Are you open to any other firearm legislation other than increasing the number of firearms or sticking with the legislation??
Every other pro-gun individuals are hell bent on their way or the highway....that is 1)conservative in nature with no progressive notions attached 2) narrow minded because no other alternatives are even respected or considered and all of this is supported, led by and formed by the NRA. No false claims made there.

5- We are talking about a constitutional right that is allowing these deaths to occur in other words validating those having a firearm...thus "best interests" of society would be to limit the number of deaths with a firearm and in my view that is through limiting the number of firearms in the USA. There is a drug crisis....we don't insert more drugs into the system or do nothing and be happy with what is occurring, when an individual has disease you remove the disease not let it fester and hope for the best....
 
Rucker61 said:
Find a recent red/blue map of the US. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13. That's what it's hoping to take to get to the status of Europe. That, and centuries of being told by your betters that they know what's best for the peasants.
Click to expand...

You can draw up and compare maps but that doesn't stop the validity or the potential success of these views. I understand the majority will be red, I understand Republicans won't stand for enhanced firearm legislation but if everyone gets told what you just pointed out to be the whole map would be red. It is about standing up for the views regardless of the odds, particularly when these views are held by Americans.

Polls are saying averaged out 67% of Americans believe it is too easy to buy a firearm as well as the US needs stricter gun laws

In no way am I a better, no point playing the victim card or anything of that nature. I am simply stating facts and statistics, as well as offering my opinion
 
TurtleDude said:
that's your opinion that many reject. You pretend that the billions of hours of enjoyment millions of Americans derive from hunting, shooting, and collecting means nothing. And its getting really stupid this bit of yours claiming we who don't buy into a foreigner's hate of our gun rights calling us ignorant. we damn well know the issues and since our values are different than yours, you are the one whose comments display ignorance when you try to project your hatred of gun ownership upon us
Click to expand...

Accepted. The two exceptions for firearm use in mu opinion is shooting as a professional sport and employment uses for a firearm. What I don't agree with is the notion that average citizens can carry firearms in their car to "protect themselves", in the house to "protect themselves", the notion you can buy a firearm when you walk straight into Walmart. Its the availability and the access that needs to be limited to the general public.

There needs to be some serious consideration as to what we are willing to give up for "enjoyment"...is it..."death". This is where morality and insight should kick in an create some acceptance for that point of view.

I am ignorant when I am the one supporting the removal and limiting of firearms in the USA, when it is the cause of over 100,000 casualties per year???? I am the ignorant one for stating the truth. I am the ignorant one for using facts and figures and not relying nationalistic views and opinions. No doubt there are different values but universal values of respect, free will, free speech, openness and knowledge are applicable to nearly every western country.
 
goldkam said:
Who defines what is "right" in this whole debate? Shouldn't it be the majority of society...politicians, law makers??
Click to expand...

The US constitution, specifically the 2A, defines the right of the people to keep and bear arms and limits the government from infringing upon it. The ability, and required procedure, to amend the US constitution is also defined. Step one in removing/altering the 2A is to amend the US constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom