• 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!

Gun Control Advocacy

Threegoofs said:
So what you’re saying is that the Second Amendment really doesn’t address the modern issues of our time and is antiquated.

I couldn’t agree more.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
 
CLAX1911 said:
well then elect some representtitives that will create a legislative bill to amend the second amendment. I wish you luck.
Click to expand...

As long as there are people, beasts, or entities, (governmental or non) that seek to harm American citizens, the Second Amendment is relevant.
 
People ALWAYS blather about 'Gun Control.. Then you ask them specifics and its obvious they are just muppets dancing when their strings are pulled. Ask them about Background checks...SURE! But then point out background checks have been done on pretty much EVERY mass shooter and have PROVEN to be ineffective...and they got nothin. They blather on about "the gun show loophole" but then when you point out the fact that gun shows are no different than anywhere else and all dealers at gun shows MUST run background checks and they just look at you like little Japanese anime figures with the blinky eyes. They talk about 'assault rifle' bans, but then cant explain what an assault rifle is or worse, try to explain what an assault rifle is and make total fools of themselves.

LOTS of people talk about gun control...right out of their ass.
 
VanceMack said:
People ALWAYS blather about 'Gun Control.. Then you ask them specifics and its obvious they are just muppets dancing when their strings are pulled. Ask them about Background checks...SURE! But then point out background checks have been done on pretty much EVERY mass shooter and have PROVEN to be ineffective...and they got nothin. They blather on about "the gun show loophole" but then when you point out the fact that gun shows are no different than anywhere else and all dealers at gun shows MUST run background checks and they just look at you like little Japanese anime figures with the blinky eyes. They talk about 'assault rifle' bans, but then cant explain what an assault rifle is or worse, try to explain what an assault rifle is and make total fools of themselves.

LOTS of people talk about gun control...right out of their ass.
Click to expand...

It is like voting-when Clinton enacted his gun bans-he said most Americans supported it-well maybe soccer moms at PTA meetings mouthed support as did yuppie stock brokers at office parties, But when it came to voting, gun rights advocates were far more likely to vote based on that issue (and TURN OUT) than the people who casually express support for nebulous gun restrictionist schemes. As I have said numerous times, the vast majority of the supporters of gun control are at that position based either on thinly analyzed emotion or due to a political agenda-not because they actually understand the issues
 
VanceMack said:
People ALWAYS blather about 'Gun Control.. Then you ask them specifics and its obvious they are just muppets dancing when their strings are pulled. Ask them about Background checks...SURE! But then point out background checks have been done on pretty much EVERY mass shooter and have PROVEN to be ineffective...and they got nothin. They blather on about "the gun show loophole" but then when you point out the fact that gun shows are no different than anywhere else and all dealers at gun shows MUST run background checks and they just look at you like little Japanese anime figures with the blinky eyes. They talk about 'assault rifle' bans, but then cant explain what an assault rifle is or worse, try to explain what an assault rifle is and make total fools of themselves.

LOTS of people talk about gun control...right out of their ass.
Click to expand...

Registration of every single firearm.

Happy now?
 
TurtleDude said:
As long as there are people, beasts, or entities, (governmental or non) that seek to harm American citizens, the Second Amendment is relevant.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the 2nd, but quit trying to take the word "regulated" out of it.
 
calamity said:
There is nothing wrong with the 2nd, but quit trying to take the word "regulated" out of it.
Click to expand...

Well quit trying to pretend Regulated in the second amendment is some reference to the federal government having some power over individual citizens.
 
TurtleDude said:
At what number of murders, does a law need to be passed?
Click to expand...

One with four zeroes after it should certainly cause enough concern that more regulation would be in order.
 
Here’s data.. the states with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun deaths.

This holds true with homicides,too.

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...dgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf


See that infection point in the line for Missouri? They relaxed gun laws significantly in 2008. And as the paper above states, that leads to 50+ more murders per year in the state.

23796cadaf7593e8b69ce7e11b306cde.jpg
 
calamity said:
One with four zeroes after it should certainly cause enough concern that more regulation would be in order.
Click to expand...

well most of those are suicides: at least 80% of the murders are perpetrated by people who are already completely banned from any sort of firearms possession. So the real number is less than 3000
 
TurtleDude said:
well most of those are suicides: at least 80% of the murders are perpetrated by people who are already completely banned from any sort of firearms possession. So the real number is less than 3000
Click to expand...

No, the real number is well over 30,000. I don't give much credence to the bull**** your post pushes. Gun deaths are gun deaths.


Now, of course, for the sake of semantics, we can break those gun deaths down to who, what, where and perhaps why. But, fact remains: there are over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA, not three-****ing-thousand.

FiveThirtyEight breaks down the more than 33,000 annual U.S. gun deaths
 
calamity said:
No, the real number is well over 30,000. I don't give much credence to the bull**** your post pushes. Gun deaths are gun deaths.


Now, of course, for the sake of semantics, we can break those gun deaths down to who, what, where and perhaps why. But, fact remains: there are over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the USA, not three-****ing-thousand.

FiveThirtyEight breaks down the more than 33,000 annual U.S. gun deaths
Click to expand...

Where you miss the point is that some gun deaths may be decreased by certain laws that threaten punishment for activities that lead to gun deaths. Suicides and killings caused by those who are already banned (with a 10 year federal prison sentence backing it up) are not ones so amenable to being decreased by laws that further erode the rights of lawful gun owners to act in ways that are currently legal.
 
Gun control means government control. That's the problem. Watching what is going on in our government and at our border do you really think you can win this argument. Nobody trust you anti gun nuts.
Thanks for the Sutherland Springs TX citizens who managed to stop, permanately, the shooter. Why, well he had the same gun in his hands that the nutcase shooter had. That's a fitting end that I bet the guy didn't expect.
 
The main problem with the gun control legislation that typically gets presented by Democrats is just mostly a sign of how ignorant they are of firearms. I really don't think legislating guns directly is the answer, right now. We know that poverty, among other things, are reliable indicators of criminality (mostly low level stuff like drugs, but still), and we know that most of our laws, or the way they're enforced, disproportionately affect minorities. I think, first order of business would need to be to decriminalize marijuana, and then maybe work on a better, universal background check system. Then, as other progressive policies help with poverty, the issues of gun violence should decrease tremendously.

I would also be more for safety measures, like requiring metal detectors at schools or something. I think if we can lower the propensity for this type of violence, and better track who is getting firearms, it wouldn't be necessary to arbitrarily ban certain types.

I don't think a lot of the pro-gun arguments are very good, on the other hand. I don't care how many guns you have, you're not putting up any kind of fight against a tyrannical government nowadays. Also, the home defense thing pretty much is and always has been a lie.
 
TurtleDude said:
Where you miss the point is that some gun deaths may be decreased by certain laws that threaten punishment for activities that lead to gun deaths. Suicides and killings caused by those who are already banned (with a 10 year federal prison sentence backing it up) are not ones so amenable to being decreased by laws that further erode the rights of lawful gun owners to act in ways that are currently legal.
Click to expand...
Too many guns fall into the wrong hands precisely because there are too many guns.
 
nekrodev said:
The main problem with the gun control legislation that typically gets presented by Democrats is just mostly a sign of how ignorant they are of firearms. I really don't think legislating guns directly is the answer, right now. We know that poverty, among other things, are reliable indicators of criminality (mostly low level stuff like drugs, but still), and we know that most of our laws, or the way they're enforced, disproportionately affect minorities. I think, first order of business would need to be to decriminalize marijuana, and then maybe work on a better, universal background check system. Then, as other progressive policies help with poverty, the issues of gun violence should decrease tremendously.

I would also be more for safety measures, like requiring metal detectors at schools or something. I think if we can lower the propensity for this type of violence, and better track who is getting firearms, it wouldn't be necessary to arbitrarily ban certain types.

I don't think a lot of the pro-gun arguments are very good, on the other hand. I don't care how many guns you have, you're not putting up any kind of fight against a tyrannical government nowadays. Also, the home defense thing pretty much is and always has been a lie.
Click to expand...

That is contrary to known reality
 
calamity said:
Too many guns fall into the wrong hands precisely because there are too many guns.
Click to expand...

How come the rate of gun violence has gone down when the number of guns has gone way up? and what you are saying is ban honest people from owning gun so criminals cannot.

it is akin to saying ban painkillers for terminal cancer patients or people with debilitating injuries because too many pills fall in the hands of addicts.
 
TurtleDude said:
How come the rate of gun violence has gone down when the number of guns has gone way up? and what you are saying is ban honest people from owning gun so criminals cannot.

it is akin to saying ban painkillers for terminal cancer patients or people with debilitating injuries because too many pills fall in the hands of addicts.
Click to expand...

What an absurd analogy.

The analogy is that we should have stronger controls on opiates because too many pills are being accessed by addicts, while allowing the terminal cancer patients to get them WITH A DEGREE OF INCONVENIENCE.

And this, is *exactly* what we have done in the past, with fairly good results, and are now currently controlling narcotic access even more, because everyone knows it makes absolute sense.

The only people who are whining about it is the people who are making tons of money on it (analogy: gun makers) and the addicts who want easy access (analogy: stupid gun nuts).
 
Threegoofs said:
What an absurd analogy.

The analogy is that we should have stronger controls on opiates because too many pills are being accessed by addicts, while allowing the terminal cancer patients to get them WITH A DEGREE OF INCONVENIENCE.

And this, is *exactly* what we have done in the past, with fairly good results, and are now currently controlling narcotic access even more, because everyone knows it makes absolute sense.

The only people who are whining about it is the people who are making tons of money on it (analogy: gun makers) and the addicts who want easy access (analogy: stupid gun nuts).
Click to expand...

1) it is a sound analogy -in fact it is spot on

2) unlike opiates, gun control advocates often have a hidden agenda behind their desire to restrict honest people-and crime control is not part of that

3) gun control disarms the people least likely to misuse guns and affects those most likely to use guns in a pernicious matter, the least

4) "inconvenience" is not a term that is relevant to constitutional rights-any infringement is unconstitutional.

5) gun "nuts" are not those causing trouble or deaths with guns. Addicts are the ones causing problems with opiates.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) it is a sound analogy -in fact it is spot on

2) unlike opiates, gun control advocates often have a hidden agenda behind their desire to restrict honest people-and crime control is not part of that

3) gun control disarms the people least likely to misuse guns and affects those most likely to use guns in a pernicious matter, the least

4) "inconvenience" is not a term that is relevant to constitutional rights-any infringement is unconstitutional.

5) gun "nuts" are not those causing trouble or deaths with guns. Addicts are the ones causing problems with opiates.
Click to expand...

1) it’s an idiotic analogy

2) the ‘hidden agenda’ is less dead and injured. Not real hard to get. Opiate ‘advocates’ are, like gun manufacturers, focused on more sales. See the Sackler family.

3) opiate control somehow keeps opiates out of the hands of abusers, albeit imperfectly. It doesn’t stop opiates from getting to the people who need them. Just like gun control

4) you whine about inconvenience all the time. When you’re proven wrong, you shift to ‘rights’. Registering your gun with the proper authorities maintains your right.

5) showing the weakness in your analogy. We control opiates to keep addicts from getting them. The analogy would be that you want the addicts shaping narcotic control. Because it’s inconvenient for them. And they have a right to put whatever they want in their body.
 
Threegoofs said:
What an absurd analogy.

The analogy is that we should have stronger controls on opiates because too many pills are being accessed by addicts, while allowing the terminal cancer patients to get them WITH A DEGREE OF INCONVENIENCE.

And this, is *exactly* what we have done in the past, with fairly good results, and are now currently controlling narcotic access even more, because everyone knows it makes absolute sense.

The only people who are whining about it is the people who are making tons of money on it (analogy: gun makers) and the addicts who want easy access (analogy: stupid gun nuts).
Click to expand...

More opiates in the hand of addicts means fewer opiate deaths. That is basically the gunners' absurd position on guns, albeit masked in bull****. "More guns in the hands of 'good guys' means a safer society."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom