• 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!

...you're More Likely to Shoot a Loved One

Slyfox696 said:
Umm...yes.

Wait, did YOU say that? You need to allow me a moment to collect myself on a situation in which we agree. :)

However, since it just feels wrong for us to agree on this topic, my guess is we differ drastically on the steps which should be used to keep incompetents from having guns. I favor registration (to help prevent and/or crack down on those purchasing for others), background checks for all purchases (which would also help allow for proper transfer of sold firearms with the registration regulation),
Click to expand...
yes most people with common sense would differ with you on that.

You're expecting to control crime with laws. That doesn't make any kind of sense you control crime with enforcement.

you will never get people to voluntarily register their gun especially if they intend on committing crimes with them. then there's the type of people that don't want to register their guns because they are worried about good government confiscating. So the only people that will work on our people who would never sell her guns to a criminal never commit a crime with them.

when you talk about common sense gun control and you present these options I have to ask is this a parody?

and mandatory (but free of charge) training for the purchase of the first firearm (and every so often after that...for the sake of discussion, let's say every 10 years).
Click to expand...
so you can be as incompetent as you want as you can possibly be as long as you pass a training every ten years?

What sense does that make?

what I really think it is what all of this is is to build barriers between the person firearm essentially eliminating the right with out the proper process to do so.

How do you propose to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them?
Click to expand...
You can't. just thought you can't control negligent parents can let their kids caught up on the roof fall off and get hurt or buy their kids automobiles for they go out recommend get hurt or die. The world's a dangerous place eliminating liberties to make it safer means you deserve neither liberty or safety.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You're expecting to control crime with laws. That doesn't make any kind of sense
Click to expand...
Then why do we have laws against theft, murder, speeding, filing correct information with banks, voter registration, etc.?
you control crime with enforcement.
Click to expand...
...uhh, if there are no laws, what are you enforcing?

I'll tell you what. Before I read the rest of your post, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and rethink what you're saying because, quite frankly, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Then why do we have laws against theft, murder, speeding, filing correct information with banks, voter registration, etc.?
...uhh, if there are no laws, what are you enforcing?

I'll tell you what. Before I read the rest of your post, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and rethink what you're saying because, quite frankly, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, the whole "laws won't stop criminals from breaking them" is one of their more inane arguments. I see it often from the gun-crowd.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Then why do we have laws against theft, murder, speeding, filing correct information with banks, voter registration, etc.?
...uhh, if there are no laws, what are you enforcing?

I'll tell you what. Before I read the rest of your post, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and rethink what you're saying because, quite frankly, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

Just to inject a comment on laws...they don't actually stop crime they punish for committing a crime. Laws like most police actions are in reaction to a crime that the laws did not prevent.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Then why do we have laws against theft, murder, speeding, filing correct information with banks, voter registration, etc.?
Click to expand...
So law enforcement has Law to enforce. You can't enforce law without law. And murder, normally involves a body or a missing person that's normally where the investigation starts. Speeding involves a vehicle on a public thoroughfare. That's normally where those investigations start. Fraud normally involves a defrauded party that's normally where investigation on those sorts of crimes start. And in order to vote you have to be registered.

These laws are enforceable and violating them has victims.

I don't drive my gun around on a thoroughfare in fact I never let anybody know I have it so unless police are just going to search everybody violating the forth amendment they will never know. So you can't enforce that like speed limits.

Owning a gun doesn't produce a dead body, a murder scene, or a missing person. So where will the police begin to investigate? If I purchased the gun illegally there won't even be a paper trail.

Buying and owning a gun doesn't result in a bank cashing a phony check.

So how will the police even know that they need to investigate? Psychics, mediums, soothsayers?


...uhh, if there are no laws, what are you enforcing?
Click to expand...
How about real crimes? Crimes with victims. Crimes like murder, armed robbery, rape.

I'll tell you what. Before I read the rest of your post, I'm going to give you a chance to go back and rethink what you're saying because, quite frankly, it doesn't seem to make much sense.
Click to expand...

I know what you are saying. You think the laws proposed were coming sense. Things like background checks that nobody will do and nobody will get caught not doing it because there is no way to know if someone is selling a gun. Registration that won't do anything because nobody will register their guns.

You think this makes sense but it doesn't.
 
=Slyfox696;1070698678]But those people are still getting firearms. So how do you propose to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for the people that shouldn't have firearms good luck on that one. Sure I can throw my hands in the air, bury my head in the sand or pretend that just one more gun law will solve the wrong people from getting them. Guess what? At the end of the day if they want it they will get it.
I have to register for numerous things in my life. It's not that big of a hassle.
Click to expand...
Not everyone cares to be a slave to a computer data bank in all walks of life. Though unfortunately we are all registered somewhere. Some more so than others.
I mean, there's plenty of evidence where this isn't true, but I'm not looking to go down that rabbit hole. My question is simply how you propose to keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them, but are getting them anyways?
Click to expand...
In reference to UBGCs yes they are absolutely worthless. As far as rabbit holes go? Man you are long gone as in jumped in with both feet,dove in head first,took the express elevator g_o_i_n_g down. :eek:
 
Casper said:
Just to inject a comment on laws...they don't actually stop crime they punish for committing a crime.
Click to expand...
Explain the Sudafed ban then. Thanks!
CLAX1911 said:
So law enforcement has Law to enforce. You can't enforce law without law.
Click to expand...
Okay, so when you said you don't control crime with laws, you were wrong?
And murder, normally involves a body or a missing person that's normally where the investigation starts. Speeding involves a vehicle on a public thoroughfare. That's normally where those investigations start. Fraud normally involves a defrauded party that's normally where investigation on those sorts of crimes start. And in order to vote you have to be registered.

These laws are enforceable and violating them has victims.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware. You're the one who said you don't control crime (by which I assume you meant undesirable actions) with laws.

I don't drive my gun around on a thoroughfare
Click to expand...
Yes, and if registration was a law, if you had a gun that wasn't registered, that's where an investigation would start.

Your argument is silly and I think we both know it.
in fact I never let anybody know I have it so unless police are just going to search everybody violating the forth amendment they will never know.
Click to expand...
You don't hunt with your guns? You don't take them to the shooting range? You don't go buy ammo for them?

Owning a gun doesn't produce a dead body, a murder scene, or a missing person. So where will the police begin to investigate? If I purchased the gun illegally there won't even be a paper trail.
Click to expand...
But if you procure that gun illegally and then use it in a crime, then the police can trace to where that gun was originally purchased and if it turns out someone sold it to you illegally and never registered it was no longer theirs, then they would (under my scenario) have committed a crime (assuming it was never reported stolen, obviously).

Your argument is stupid. We both know it. I suggest you drop it.

I know what you are saying. You think the laws proposed were coming sense.
Click to expand...
They are.

Things like background checks that nobody will do and nobody will get caught not doing it because there is no way to know if someone is selling a gun. Registration that won't do anything because nobody will register their guns.
Click to expand...
And there's no way of knowing if I give my prescription drugs to someone else, but that's still against the law. :shrug:

Your argument is silly. I suggest you drop it.

You think this makes sense but it doesn't.
Click to expand...
It makes perfect sense. You don't want to consider it because you are against the idea of it, not because you have any valid argument against the logic of it.

It's okay if you don't want it, but to argue it doesn't make sense is just downright false.
 
aociswundumho said:
Trust me, my absolute hatred for the collectivist left has nothing to do with Trump - it has to do with the mountain of corpses and rivers of blood caused by Marxism.
Click to expand...

---What does Marxism have to do with American politics.
There are fewer Marxists in America than vacuum tube salesmen.
Your conviction that all people on the Left are Marxists disqualifies you from any credibility whatsoever and there is simply no point in attempting to have a serious discussion with a person with such unhinged knee jerk reactionary views.
Tell ME what views I HAVE that connect to "Marxism".
You can't.

aociswundumho said:
No one reading this exchange here is going to think Trump is my "hero", but they'll probably think you're suffering from tds.
Click to expand...

Says the person who just finished talking about their "absolute hatred". But you have your double standard, the one that makes you afraid to look in the mirror. The mark of an absolute coward. What they'll think is, you're a hypocritical coward who runs around talking about absolute hatred, then smears people he doesn't agree with as "suffering from TDS".

aociswundumho said:
First, I disagree that there is any sort of "crisis". The rate of violent crime in the US has been dropping precipitously for decades.
Click to expand...

---Yes, VIOLENT CRIME AS A WHOLE has been dropping. Some of the reasons might surprise you, like LEAD, for instance.
Some aspects of violent crime on the other hand have been skyrocketing, specifically domestic terror attacks in the form of mass shootings.
This is what I am referring to.

aociswundumho said:
Second, while I appreciate your honest answer, I'm pretty sure this idea would be extremely unpopular with modern progressives.
Click to expand...

---Based on your knee jerk McCarthyist perceptions of the Left, it's clear you don't have a clue what progressives think at all, but in any case...UNLIKE YOU, many on the Left have a wide variety of positions instead of one dimensional dogma.
My views are my own and encompass a lot of different points on the political spectrum.

aociswundumho said:
What can I say, it's fun.
Click to expand...

This last response tells me all I need to know about you.
It's fun?
So is masturbation, but educated people don't do it in public.
Your absolute hatred consumes you to the point where logic and reason go by the wayside in your head.
Absolute hatred, eh? Your words, my friend.

Maybe you should get started writing your manifesto...you know, the one where you express your absolute hatred for Marxists in action instead of words.
Congratulations, hack.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Explain the Sudafed ban then. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You'll have to explain I wasn't aware Sudafed was banned.
Okay, so when you said you don't control crime with laws, you were wrong?
Click to expand...
No I was correct you control crime with enforcement. You control people that aren't criminals with laws. Such people aren't responsible for crime.
Yes, I'm aware. You're the one who said you don't control crime (by which I assume you meant undesirable actions) with laws.
Click to expand...
No I don't mean undesirable actions when I say crimes. I mean crimes as in breaking laws. Farting on an elevator is an undesirable action, but it isn't a crime.

Yes, and if registration was a law, if you had a gun that wasn't registered, that's where an investigation would start.
Click to expand...
So you are relying on psychic police in order to know who has a gun and who doesn't?

If not what other method would you use to know if somebody has a gun?

Your argument is silly and I think we both know it.
You don't hunt with your guns? You don't take them to the shooting range? You don't go buy ammo for them?
Click to expand...
So would you then need to present a gun registration to buy ammo, hunt, or use a gun range? How will you enforce that?

But if you procure that gun illegally and then use it in a crime, then the police can trace to where that gun was originally purchased and if it turns out someone sold it to you illegally and never registered it was no longer theirs, then they would (under my scenario) have committed a crime (assuming it was never reported stolen, obviously).
Click to expand...
So you would have to retroactively register all existing guns. How do you get people to do that?

Assuming you can (charitably) someone can sell their registered gun and just report it stolen. I would, no matter who I sold it to. There is every motivation to do that and no motivation not to.

Your argument is stupid. We both know it. I suggest you drop it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like wishful thinking. My argument is Rock solid and we both know it. You just want me to drop it so you don't get owned.

They are.
Click to expand...
Whatever you have to tell yourself. Odd how people lacking common sense seem to be able to spot it, but it's an odd world.

And there's no way of knowing if I give my prescription drugs to someone else, but that's still against the law. :shrug:
Click to expand...
It's not really an enforcible law than is it? The people who get arrested are the users with no prescription.

Your argument is silly. I suggest you drop it.
Click to expand...
Because you can point out other laws that are unenforceable? I'm not going to drop it I'm going to hammer you until you break.

It makes perfect sense. You don't want to consider it because you are against the idea of it, not because you have any valid argument against the logic of it.
Click to expand...
You don't want to consider my position because the idea of it. That's why you keep begging me to drop it.

You don't have a valid argument against my logic.

This is really some basic debate nonsense. I'm not that easy.

It's okay if you don't want it, but to argue it doesn't make sense is just downright false.
Click to expand...

Don't argue that it's common sense. That's just downright false.

This is going to be easy.
 
Bullseye said:
Your replies to me are idiotic bull****.
Click to expand...

that he is ignorant of what happened in England and Australia-and in some states of our nation, means Its not worth responding to the bs.
 
those who follow the laws are controlled further when more laws are passed. Those people aren't harming others. Those who break the laws are only controlled after they are prosecuted and jailed. The left wants to pass MORE laws to harass honest people and to criminalize actions which are not objectively harmful. We on the right want to enforce the laws that criminalize objectively harmful activity.
 
calamity said:
Yes, the whole "laws won't stop criminals from breaking them" is one of their more inane arguments. I see it often from the gun-crowd.
Click to expand...

Laws don't stop criminals from breaking them, that's what makes them criminals in the first place, they break the laws. What does stop criminals from breaking laws is proper enforcement of the laws.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Explain the Sudafed ban then. Thanks!
Okay, so when you said you don't control crime with laws, you were wrong?
Yes, I'm aware. You're the one who said you don't control crime (by which I assume you meant undesirable actions) with laws.

Yes, and if registration was a law, if you had a gun that wasn't registered, that's where an investigation would start.

Your argument is silly and I think we both know it.
You don't hunt with your guns? You don't take them to the shooting range? You don't go buy ammo for them?

But if you procure that gun illegally and then use it in a crime, then the police can trace to where that gun was originally purchased and if it turns out someone sold it to you illegally and never registered it was no longer theirs, then they would (under my scenario) have committed a crime (assuming it was never reported stolen, obviously).

Your argument is stupid. We both know it. I suggest you drop it.

They are.

And there's no way of knowing if I give my prescription drugs to someone else, but that's still against the law. :shrug:

Your argument is silly. I suggest you drop it.

It makes perfect sense. You don't want to consider it because you are against the idea of it, not because you have any valid argument against the logic of it.

It's okay if you don't want it, but to argue it doesn't make sense is just downright false.
Click to expand...

I will only address the answer to my post, did bans on drugs and alcohol stop their useage or availability? If you want something like Sudafed you can still get it. Bans such as those resolve nothing and simply make average Citizens into criminals. One has to deal with the actual issue to truly make an impact. Never forget Americans tend not follow along with laws they feel infringe on what they consider to be their rights, never confuse them with people in other nations that have been conditioned to obey the government.
 
TurtleDude said:
those who follow the laws are controlled further when more laws are passed. Those people aren't harming others. Those who break the laws are only controlled after they are prosecuted and jailed. The left wants to pass MORE laws to harass honest people and to criminalize actions which are not objectively harmful. We on the right want to enforce the laws that criminalize objectively harmful activity.
Click to expand...

The basic goal is to covert gun ownership from an individual constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege with licensing and registration fee requirements (much like we currently treat motor vehicle owners/operators).
 
DebateChallenge said:
Laws don't stop criminals from breaking them, that's what makes them criminals in the first place, they break the laws. What does stop criminals from breaking laws is proper enforcement of the laws.
Click to expand...

Well you kind of have to have the laws to enforce.....lol
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The basic goal is to covert gun ownership from an individual constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege with licensing and registration fee requirements (much like we currently treat motor vehicle owners/operators).
Click to expand...

Voting is a right that is registered, permits are given for speech and assembly
 
DebateChallenge said:
Laws don't stop criminals from breaking them, that's what makes them criminals in the first place, they break the laws. What does stop criminals from breaking laws is proper enforcement of the laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, enforcement; hence the need for laws to enforce. :roll:
 
vegas giants said:
Voting is a right that is registered, permits are given for speech and assembly
Click to expand...

I am not opposed to limiting gun ownership to registered voters - are you OK with that? Of course, that would deny gun ownership to all non-citizen residents and allow many currently "prohibited persons" to own guns.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The basic goal is to covert gun ownership from an individual constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege with licensing and registration fee requirements (much like we currently treat motor vehicle owners/operators).
Click to expand...

the real goal is to get rid of pro gun groups by making the recreational or lawful use of firearms too much of a hassle for most folks.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I am not opposed to limiting gun ownership to registered voters - are you OK with that? Of course, that would deny gun ownership to all non-citizen residents and allow many currently "prohibited persons" to own guns.
Click to expand...

Or we could register guns just like we register voting
 
calamity said:
Yes, enforcement; hence the need for laws to enforce. :roll:
Click to expand...

gun banners want to criminalize currently lawful behavior that is not harmful rather than enforcing laws that penalize deleterious behavior that harms the public. The reason for this is that gun banners see armed voters as their enemy, not violent criminals.
 
TurtleDude said:
the real goal is to get rid of pro gun groups by making the recreational or lawful use of firearms too much of a hassle for most folks.
Click to expand...

It is likely to accomplish the reverse (inverse?) - having more folks support pro-2A groups which, in turn, tend to support more conservative politicians.
 
calamity said:
Hmm...
I wonder if his daughter forgives him.
Reminds me of that old but true argument I've been making forever: If you own a gun, after shooting yourself, you are more likely to shoot a loved one.
Shakes head
Click to expand...

Democrat response to massive numbers of shootings in Chicago: 'Make it illegal for crooks and thugs to own guns, and take away all AR-15s from all Americans.'

That is not smart. That is stupid. It is already illegal for crooks and thugs to own guns. How will adding more redundant laws change that? If most gun deaths in the US are by handguns, then why ban AR-15s instead of handguns in an experimental effort to try to stop the killings in Chicago?
 
vegas giants said:
Or we could register guns just like we register voting
Click to expand...

We do not register votes - we register potential voters (at no cost to the potential voter). As I said before, I have no problem limiting gun ownership to registered voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom