• 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!

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work In The USA

By the way....I am in favor of more cigarette control as well
 
vegas giants said:
Or we could just have gun control instead of banning guns
Click to expand...

We have gun control. What additional gun control laws do you think we should have, how much would they cost, and how many lives do you claim each of them would save?

vegas giants said:
By the way....I am in favor of more cigarette control as well
Click to expand...

How about dramatically lowering speed limits and imposing much harsher penalties for speeding (like significant jail time)?
 
daeler said:
480,000 die of cigarette smoke a year, including 41,000 by second hand smoke inhalation. More people are killed by smokers than by guns every year.
Click to expand...

You can fix more than one problem. We aren't limited to like one thing per decade or something.
 
nekrodev said:
You can fix more than one problem. We aren't limited to like one thing per decade or something.
Click to expand...

The main issue is-what is the exact problem, anti gun advocates are trying to fix? they pretend it is gun violence, but their solutions mainly suggest it is honest gun ownership and lawful gun owners-and how we vote.
 
daeler said:
People always jump to that word. I like "comparison" maybe you should look that up.
Click to expand...

Good point.

vegas giants, how about you look up the word "comparison" as daeler suggested, Im waiting.
 
vegas giants said:
Here is a comparison. Someone says we should spend more money to reduce cancer. Someone else says no because more people die from heart disease.
Click to expand...

Spending money on reducing cancer affects how much money there is to spend on heart disease and vice versa since there is only so much money to spend.

Having more or less regulations on cigarettes does not affect how much regulations there is on guns and having more or less regulations on guns does not affect how much regulations there is on cigarettes.
 
vegas giants said:
By the way....I am in favor of more cigarette control as well
Click to expand...

So should the purchase of cigarettes require a background check? Should there be a waiting period for buying cigarettes? Should people be prohibited of possessing cigarettes in "cigarette free zones"? BTW Im talking about possessing cigarettes, having them on your person, not necessarily smoking them. Should there be a national registry of cigarettes where everybody who has cigarettes is recorded and it says what kind of cigarettes they've got and how many?
 
DebateChallenge said:
So should the purchase of cigarettes require a background check? Should there be a waiting period for buying cigarettes? Should people be prohibited of possessing cigarettes in "cigarette free zones"? BTW Im talking about possessing cigarettes, having them on your person, not necessarily smoking them. Should there be a national registry of cigarettes where everybody who has cigarettes is recorded and it says what kind of cigarettes they've got and how many?
Click to expand...

your brain needs to be fixed. i don't know where they offer that service, but you need to find that place and get them to help you.


on a serious note, regulation that could actually be enacted for cigarettes or other tobacco products would be like, making insurance not apply to smoking related stuff, or more taxes on it. or, you could even require cigarettes be made with less harmful stuff, and sold with various % of nicotine, like vaping.
 
nekrodev said:
your brain needs to be fixed. i don't know where they offer that service, but you need to find that place and get them to help you.
Click to expand...

The only people whose brains need to be fixed are those who are against gun rights.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Guns are inanimate objects we hear. How can they have rights? What an insane concept.
Click to expand...

Exactly, guns don't have rights.

But its people who have rights, and when people have rights that pertain to guns we call them "gun rights."

So what this is really all about is people rights and people control.
 
vegas giants said:
Or we could just have gun control instead of banning guns
Click to expand...

I am perfectly fine with gun control that makes sense. I just am not in favor of gun bans, or laws that don't make sense. background checks? sure makes sense. charge a bunch of people extra because of a few bad people? doesn't make sense. no thanks.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So should the purchase of cigarettes require a background check? Should there be a waiting period for buying cigarettes? Should people be prohibited of possessing cigarettes in "cigarette free zones"? BTW Im talking about possessing cigarettes, having them on your person, not necessarily smoking them. Should there be a national registry of cigarettes where everybody who has cigarettes is recorded and it says what kind of cigarettes they've got and how many?
Click to expand...

No. Cigarette control should be desi8for cigarettes and gun co8shoukd be designed for guns
 
daeler said:
I am perfectly fine with gun control that makes sense. I just am not in favor of gun bans, or laws that don't make sense. background checks? sure makes sense. charge a bunch of people extra because of a few bad people? doesn't make sense. no thanks.
Click to expand...

Mandatory background checks makes you a gun banner on this forum. Its nuts
 
vegas giants said:
Shall not be infringed

Merica
Click to expand...
Yes the 2nd Amendment of the constitution does say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

As its been suggested here before, people could get back all their rights after getting out of prison including their gun rights. A person who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted on the outside, period. Which has also led to the suggestion of longer sentences, including life sentences.

If we were to implement such a system there would be no longer any need for background checks.

As of right now its just an idea and until and if we do implement such a system Im fine with background checks.

Its strange that you would choose to live in a country that you mock.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yes the 2nd Amendment of the constitution does say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

As its been suggested here before, people could get back all their rights after getting out of prison including their gun rights. A person who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted on the outside, period. Which has also led to the suggestion of longer sentences, including life sentences.

If we were to implement such a system there would be no longer any need for background checks.

As of right now its just an idea and until and if we do implement such a system Im fine with background checks.

Its strange that you would choose to live in a country that you mock.
Click to expand...

And of course guns for toddlers.

Shall not be infringed

Merica
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom