• 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!

Police Keep Getting Shot by Illegal Guns

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Making gun ownership illegal isn’t much good against people who don’t obey the law. Even in countries with very strict anti-gun laws the criminals seem to have no trouble getting them.

Banning guns just puts law abiding people at a disadvantage. Gun free zones turn innocent people into sitting ducks.

In nations like Japan the murder rate would be very low even if everyone owned a firearm. In the US the murder rate would be as high even if guns were generally confiscated.

If only the police had guns criminals would kill policemen to steal their guns.

The murder rate in US cities is proportional to the strictness of gun control - as much cause as effect.
 
Making gun ownership illegal isn’t much good against people who don’t obey the law. Even in countries with very strict anti-gun laws the criminals seem to have no trouble getting them.

Banning guns just puts law abiding people at a disadvantage. Gun free zones turn innocent people into sitting ducks.

In nations like Japan the murder rate would be very low even if everyone owned a firearm. In the US the murder rate would be as high even if guns were generally confiscated.

If only the police had guns criminals would kill policemen to steal their guns.

The murder rate in US cities is proportional to the strictness of gun control - as much cause as effect.

What's in that pipe you're smoking?
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks

Why ban bump stocks? One has only ever been used in a mass shooting once, and the death toll in that incident wasn't even close to being the highest of any recent mass murder. On top of that, a bump stock could be 3D printed or carved out of wood by anyone who wants one, so banning them won't stop determined mass murderers from obtaining them.
 
Only police and criminals need guns
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks

What should be #1 on your list to "go after" are prohibited persons (primarily convicted felons and under age people) for possessing any gun. The obvious (political) problem with that (basic common sense) "gun control" policy would be locking far too many non-white and young folks for non-violent "simple possession" offenses.
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks

1. How exactly are you going to force the NRA to provide free training to everyone, and why?

2. Background checks are only as good as the information provided by the states. Unless someone has been determined to be a “crazie” by a court AND the state provides that information to NICS, there will be no record of it. People who have not been adjudicated as a “crazie” should not have their rights removed.

3. I would be okay with red flag laws if the target is provided due process and there are stiff penalties for making false claims against someone. Your 100 yard requirement is completely unenforceable. Sitting in your living room or at the neighborhood grocery store, you have no idea, and no way of finding out, if there are any guns within 100 yards or not.

4. My guns are locked up in my house, in my vehicle or on my person.

5. Bump stocks are already banned and were nothing more than a gimmick that ONE person out of 300+ million used for a criminal purpose. The same affect can be obtained using things like rubber bands and belt loops. Ban those too?

6. The Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns with 10 round magazines and murdered 32 people. Magazine restrictions will have no impact, considering the millions and millions of higher capacity magazines already in circulation.
 
Why ban bump stocks? One has only ever been used in a mass shooting once, and the death toll in that incident wasn't even close to being the highest of any recent mass murder. On top of that, a bump stock could be 3D printed or carved out of wood by anyone who wants one, so banning them won't stop determined mass murderers from obtaining them.

It’s a pointless gesture that brainless politicians can point to and claim they DID SOMETHING.
 
Making gun ownership illegal isn’t much good against people who don’t obey the law. Even in countries with very strict anti-gun laws the criminals seem to have no trouble getting them.

Banning guns just puts law abiding people at a disadvantage. Gun free zones turn innocent people into sitting ducks.

In nations like Japan the murder rate would be very low even if everyone owned a firearm. In the US the murder rate would be as high even if guns were generally confiscated.

If only the police had guns criminals would kill policemen to steal their guns.

The murder rate in US cities is proportional to the strictness of gun control - as much cause as effect.

Simple solution to end police getting shot with illegal guns. Make the guns legal and the police will never be shot with illegal guns in the US again.
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
What gun crime does training prevent?
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks

too funny for words
 
What gun crime does training prevent?

what part of the constitution would allow the government to make the NRA provide uncompensated training? In the Prinz case, the court held that the federal government couldn't force the states to do background checks without compensation
 
There's more guns in American than there are people. Even if you managed to ban all the guns tomorrow, there's so many guns out there that you'd never get rid of them.

I'd much rather go after

1. mandatory training provided free by the NRA
2. better background checks, no crazies allowed to own guns
3. gun restraining orders when you can get a judge to say a person can't be within a 100 yards of a gun.
4. guns must be locked up when not in use.

And maybe banning clips over 30 rounds and bump stalks

Don't think the government can force the NRA to spend money to train people for free. The government doesn't do anything about guns for free. There is a fee for everything.

In this city it would be very difficult to be further than 100 yards from a gun - and how would a person know anyway?

Bump stocks are absurdity inefficient - but weren't they recently banned?
 
too funny for words

He's trying to find a middle ground rather than just banning everything. I'll give that poster credit for that - trying to find a solution without ranting all firearms must be surrendered pretending it would happen. That poster recognizes that isn't a realistic option.
 
Making gun ownership illegal isn’t much good against people who don’t obey the law. Even in countries with very strict anti-gun laws the criminals seem to have no trouble getting them.
That isn’t true. Countries with strict gun laws and effective application of those laws do make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms. It will never make it impossible and those determined to will always manage but it certainly reduces the element of petty criminals routinely carrying and, even if they don’t plan to, using, firearms.

Banning guns just puts law abiding people at a disadvantage. Gun free zones turn innocent people into sitting ducks.
Simply having the right to carry firearms doesn’t magically make everyone safer. Law abiding citizens are always going to be at a disadvantage to criminals engaging in a planned endeavour. Making guns ubiquitous only serves to guarantee that every confrontation can become a shootout.

In nations like Japan the murder rate would be very low even if everyone owned a firearm. In the US the murder rate would be as high even if guns were generally confiscated.
True, and that is a function of gun culture. Even if it became legal, most Japanese people still wouldn’t want to carry guns and even if it became illegal, many Americans would. The law in itself isn’t the issue, but the law is a reflection of the culture.

If only the police had guns criminals would kill policemen to steal their guns.
Some would, most couldn’t even if they wanted to. Of course, if all law-abiding citizens had guns, the criminals would have much softer targets to steal from. If literally everyone were allowed to have guns, the criminals wouldn’t need to steal them at all.

The murder rate in US cities is proportional to the strictness of gun control - as much cause as effect.
No it isn’t. They both vary massively by time and place but they’re not consistently proportional.
 
That isn’t true. Countries with strict gun laws and effective application of those laws do make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms. It will never make it impossible and those determined to will always manage but it certainly reduces the element of petty criminals routinely carrying and, even if they don’t plan to, using, firearms.

Simply having the right to carry firearms doesn’t magically make everyone safer. Law abiding citizens are always going to be at a disadvantage to criminals engaging in a planned endeavour. Making guns ubiquitous only serves to guarantee that every confrontation can become a shootout.

True, and that is a function of gun culture. Even if it became legal, most Japanese people still wouldn’t want to carry guns and even if it became illegal, many Americans would. The law in itself isn’t the issue, but the law is a reflection of the culture.

Some would, most couldn’t even if they wanted to. Of course, if all law-abiding citizens had guns, the criminals would have much softer targets to steal from. If literally everyone were allowed to have guns, the criminals wouldn’t need to steal them at all.

No it isn’t. They both vary massively by time and place but they’re not consistently proportional.

You appear to agree that the violence is in the culture, not in the guns, but you don't want to grant law abiding citizens the right to use guns for self defense even given that our culture is more violent. Shooting it out is way better that being shot at and having no defense.
 
How many god damn times do you people throw out the same god damn stupid argument.

It's hard to keep guns away from criminals when there are pretty much no regulations. They can go to a neighboring red state and buy as many guns as they want. People can sell them guns. NOt hard for criminals to get guns when its so easy to get guns and sell guns
 
You appear to agree that the violence is in the culture, not in the guns, but you don't want to grant law abiding citizens the right to use guns for self defense even given that our culture is more violent. Shooting it out is way better that being shot at and having no defense.

Let's test the theory. Which states in the US have the most gun deaths? Lax gun laws or strict gun laws?
 
You appear to agree that the violence is in the culture, not in the guns, but you don't want to grant law abiding citizens the right to use guns for self defense even given that our culture is more violent. Shooting it out is way better that being shot at and having no defense.
You’re still working on the (IMO flawed) assumption that a relaxation of gun laws wouldn’t see an increase in gun use by criminals and other bad or dangerous actors. Just as you can’t restrict guns to criminals without restricting law-abiding citizens, you can’t allow guns for law-abiding citizens without allowing them for criminals too. After all, the step to being a criminal can turn on a moment and could happen before or after a person gets a gun.

The point of highlighting factors beyond gun laws is that focusing on those are much more likely to have a positive impact on violent crime (and related problems) than obsessing over the impossible task of resolving the endless gun law debate to everyone’s (anyone’s!) satisfaction. The two questions Americans ask in response to another reported shooting is “What colour were they?” and “What guns did they use?”. The question of “Why did they want to kill anyone?” falls way down the list, if it gets asked at all.
 
You’re still working on the (IMO flawed) assumption that a relaxation of gun laws wouldn’t see an increase in gun use by criminals and other bad or dangerous actors. Just as you can’t restrict guns to criminals without restricting law-abiding citizens, you can’t allow guns for law-abiding citizens without allowing them for criminals too. After all, the step to being a criminal can turn on a moment and could happen before or after a person gets a gun.

The point of highlighting factors beyond gun laws is that focusing on those are much more likely to have a positive impact on violent crime (and related problems) than obsessing over the impossible task of resolving the endless gun law debate to everyone’s (anyone’s!) satisfaction. The two questions Americans ask in response to another reported shooting is “What colour were they?” and “What guns did they use?”. The question of “Why did they want to kill anyone?” falls way down the list, if it gets asked at all.

As a matter of fact, there is a lot of evidence that a relaxation of gun laws in the form of "shall issue" concealed carry resulted in a fall off of criminal activity. By the same token, there is scant evidence that increased restriction of guns reduces gun crime.

Thinking that violent crime is the result of availability of guns has always been a big mistake and results in ineffective policy. Effective policy focuses on the actors. Just his week three potential mass murders were prevented by doing that.
 
There is "evidence" presented for pretty much any conclusion you care to imagine on the topic. It is so complex, full of bias and impacted by countless other factors as to all be meaningless.

Thinking that violent crime is the result of availability of guns has always been a big mistake and results in ineffective policy. Effective policy focuses on the actors.
That's what I just said. I also said that thinking that violent crime is the result of the lack of availability of guns has always been a big mistake too. If you take either side of the gun debate, you're wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom