• 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!

Think It Over

Rucker61 said:
The ATF isn't even confiscating the guns from known felons with their names and addresses from the FBi 4473 felon list. Pretty sure that if they showed up in my county the Sheriff would arrest them.

Of course, that's your fantasyland "if guns are banned", which you admit will never ever happen here in the US.

Why didn't the authorities confiscate all of the types of guns banned in Australia?
Click to expand...

The fact of the matter is, even if the impossible occurs and guns are banned in the USA to the extent that we've got gun laws identical to Japan, the ATF wouldn't know where to go as they wouldn't know who has what guns. All the more reason to be thankful that we don't have a national registry. But the fact of the matter is, since we don't have a national registry they wouldn't know who has guns and who doesn't.
 
DebateChallenge said:
That's already been discussed in the Law and Order folder.
Click to expand...

...and the answer is you exit your vehicle willingly...or be dragged through what's left of your broken driver's side window.


When they come for your guns, you will meekly hand them over.
 
Rich2018 said:
...and the answer is you exit your vehicle willingly...or be dragged through what's left of your broken driver's side window.


When they come for your guns, you will meekly hand them over.
Click to expand...

Is that why 20 years later the Australians still have to offer amnesty for banned guns? Why didn't they meekly turn them all in in 1996?
 
Rich2018 said:
When they come for your guns, you will meekly hand them over.
Click to expand...

You've just fallen for what I call excuse #4, that people will willingly albeit reluctantly turn over their guns in the event that guns are made illegal and they do door to door seizures.
 
Rucker61 said:
Is that why 20 years later the Australians still have to offer amnesty for banned guns? Why didn't they meekly turn them all in in 1996?
Click to expand...

Because some hid them
So never registered them
There are a probably a lot of illegally held firearms in the UK that the owners just couldn't bear to part with ... a periodic amnesty helps them hand in their guns


Are you suggesting that Australians refused to hand over their guns when approached by law enforcement?
 
DebateChallenge said:
You've just fallen for what I call excuse #4, that people will willingly albeit reluctantly turn over their guns in the event that guns are made illegal and they do door to door seizures.
Click to expand...


They always have


They always will


Yes there will be the occasional guy who'll barricade himself inside his house....these odd exceptions can just be starved out.
 
Rich2018 said:
They always have


They always will


Yes there will be the occasional guy who'll barricade himself inside his house....these odd exceptions can just be starved out.
Click to expand...

Nope its the other way around. Yes you're right that there are some people who would willingly turn over their guns and there always will be but they're the ones who are in the minority, they're the odd exceptions.
 
DebateChallenge said:
If you're going to get involved in the gun debate you really should think it over. The thing about the gun control crowd is that most of the people in that crowd don't think it over, they just look at raw facts and come to immediate conclusions which are sloppy and not well thought over. In the Brady Campaign where they've got no brain this is very common. The gun control crowd likes to point out how there are close to 40,000 gun deaths per year in the USA and compares that to other countries with much stricter gun control and much fewer gun deaths such as Japan. They then come to the immediate conclusion that we should do all we can to get rid of guns and that we should be like Japan in terms of gun control or perhaps even stricter. As I said, such a conclusion is sloppy and not well thought over. Although there are less than 40,000 gun deaths per year for sake of discussion lets say there are 40,000 gun deaths per year. To be good at taking on the gun debate you've got to look beyond the 40,000 gun deaths a year and look at exactly what kind of gun deaths they are. Most of the gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest of the gun deaths are deaths in gangs where gangsters shoot and kill other gangsters. Very very rarely are gun deaths ever the result of guns that are lawfully owned by law abiding citizens. If we were to look at just the gun deaths that are from guns owned by law abiding citizens we would have a gun death rate that would be if not as low as Japan's rate perhaps as low as the UK's rate.
Click to expand...

When I look at gun deaths, the only ones that matter are those where one person misused that gun and killed another person. Accidental/unintendeddeaths, while tragic, involve an accident or someone doing something stupid. The gun control people, many who are also pro abortion, shouldn't count suicides. I thought they believed what someone did with their body was their choice. Why does someone doing something with a gun make it different than a woman allowing a doctor to suck out a baby with what amounts to a vacuum?

The gun control crowd, when shown that just as many people die each year in vehicles as they do with guns, they go to the usual "a car wasn't designed to kill people". It's an invalid argument unless they can show me how someone killed in a car accident is any less dead than someone killed in a gun accident.
 
CFI302 said:
The gun control crowd, when shown that just as many people die each year in vehicles as they do with guns, they go to the usual "a car wasn't designed to kill people". It's an invalid argument unless they can show me how someone killed in a car accident is any less dead than someone killed in a gun accident.
Click to expand...

An airplane wasn't designed to kill people, but its very good at killing people if used for that purpose as we know from 9/11. Airplanes are better at killing than guns if used for that purpose.
 
DebateChallenge said:
An airplane wasn't designed to kill people, but its very good at killing people if used for that purpose as we know from 9/11. Airplanes are better at killing than guns if used for that purpose.
Click to expand...

That's the point. ANYTHING can be used to kill. What does the original intent of an item have to do with it being used to do bad things? Can get the gun control people to explain their thought process. All I get is guns bad, ban them.
 
TurtleDude said:
The GC crowd comes to its position almost always due to politics and ignorance. You really meet someone who has spent years around firearms who is a big gun banner unless they are government operatives with a machiavellian motivation. Most anti gun folks are urban or suburban liberals who are disgusted by the fact that Gun owners tend to vote for politicians who are not socialists, nor do they support issues near and dear to urban liberals such as abortion on demand. So the GC movement is mainly about power and political paybacks with pandering to the masses on top of that. But those arguments don't really sell well in the public, so the GCAs have to pretend their schemes are designed to make people safer. But when they make those arguments, they run into people who actually understand the issues and hammer them mercilessly on the errors the GCAs make.
Click to expand...

Socialism yet again ? When will people realize that American capitalists love American socialism...for the rich.

Single-payer govt.-run 'health' insurance for banks,(FDIC) crops (FCIC) Pension (PBGC) and

overseas private [sic] investors, (OPIC)

S&L bailouts and of course TARP.

On guns, the hurdle is a unique gun culture in America. That will never change.
 
CFI302 said:
That's the point. ANYTHING can be used to kill. What does the original intent of an item have to do with it being used to do bad things? Can get the gun control people to explain their thought process. All I get is guns bad, ban them.
Click to expand...

Well what's important is not what an item is originally designed for but rather what its good at.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Well what's important is not what an item is originally designed for but rather what its good at.
Click to expand...

On this issue, it's what the item was used to do not what it was designed to do.
 
Rucker61 said:
The ATF isn't even confiscating the guns from known felons with their names and addresses from the FBi 4473 felon list. Pretty sure that if they showed up in my county the Sheriff would arrest them.

Of course, that's your fantasyland "if guns are banned", which you admit will never ever happen here in the US.

Why didn't the authorities confiscate all of the types of guns banned in Australia?
Click to expand...



Then the new president needs to order them to do so.
 
DebateChallenge said:
...there are some people who would willingly turn over their guns and there always will be but they're the ones who are in the minority, they're the odd exceptions.
Click to expand...


Source for that bit of information ?

It wouldn't be the red, white and blue patriot in your speaking of what he wishes would be the case would it ?


What evidence of gun seizures are you referring to anyway ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Neither did Stephen Paddock...except a traffic violation.


That is until the day he decided to take his guns to a hotel and kill as many people as he could.
Click to expand...
And Stephen Paddock was just one out of hundreds of millions of gun owners. Most law abiding gun owners stay law abiding all their lives, except for maybe small violations such as traffic tickets.
 
CFI302 said:
On this issue, it's what the item was used to do not what it was designed to do.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what's more important is what the item is good for, planes are very good for killing thousands of people, better than guns for that.
 
Rich2018 said:
Cheap talk.


You'll hand them over meekly, just like almost everybody else.
Click to expand...
Only in your wet dream fantasy, and that goes for both me and almost everybody else.


Rich2018 said:
But if you think that guns are worth dying over, go right ahead...just try not to hurt anyone else in the process.
Click to expand...
Try not to hurt anyone else, that's just the thing, in your pretend scenario where there is door to door gun confiscation, most gun owners will turn over their guns, bullets first.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And Stephen Paddock was just one out of hundreds of millions of gun owners....
Click to expand...

And just one of the mass shootings in the USA that happen at a rate of almost one per DAY

Paddock was just one man and he killed 58 people (plus himself) and injured hundreds more.



...most law abiding gun owners stay law abiding all their lives, except for maybe small violations such as traffic tickets.
Click to expand...


So what ????


Every gun owner is another potential "Paddock".

Do you really not understand that ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom