• 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!

Another Good Guy with a Gun...

jaeger19 said:
Just like a lot of americans didn't think that the prime motivation of voter ID was to limit the right to vote and disenfranchise certain minority groups from voting.

++ The stated purpose of voter ID laws on more than one occasion was to give the GOP a slight edge, tho it was not explicitly racial.

In fact.. if you think about it.. gun control and background checks are really designed not to just hassle lawful gun owners.. but in particularly minorities and the poor.. who for one.. may not pass a background check for simply having a marijuana conviction.. or who don't have the extra money to undergo a background check every time the transfer or purchase a firearm.

++ So remove a pot bust as a reason to deny gun ownership.

For example.. under a universal background check law..lets say that my buddy wants to borrow my sons old 20 gauge youth shotgun to teach his son to shoot shotgun. Under the law.. he has to undergo a background check.. which costs 20 dollars in my state..and then 6 months later when he hands it back.. I have to undergo a background check when he transfers it back to me.. again another 20 bucks.

++ Dumb law. Change it.

Now you say.. like a driving test? are you required to undergo a driving test every time you borrow someones car.. or purchase a car? No you are not.. but you think every time I borrow a firearm or purchase one..a background check needs to be done.

++ You have to have a drivers license. I do have to take a written test each time I renew my license. Borrowing perhaps not. Purchasing yes. Price of doing business.

The background check for firearms serves no legitimate purpose.

++ If someone has escaped from a prison for the insane, or is wanted for a violent crime, I might want that to be discovered.

A more effective method? Sure.. whenever a person becomes ineligible for firearms purchase.. have that printed on his/her state issued ID. Then you have identified those that can't own firearms.

++ Exactly. A form of instant background check.

Rather than have to do a background check and keep information on every single American in the US.
Click to expand...

++ That ship has sailed. Information is already kept on every American in the US. Background checks can find out what’s there. Saves a trip to the Post Office to look at the wanted posters.
 
Nickyjo said:
Some form of universal background checks,
Click to expand...
I support UBC, as long as they are free or affordable (under $10) and open to everyone not just FFL's
limits on fully automatic weapons,
Click to expand...
I personally think the current restrictions on fully autos are adequate and effective but would be ok as long as law enforcement at all levels are also restricted from having fully automatic weapons and they are limited to only military applications
magazine limits,
Click to expand...
magazines should be limited no no more than five rounds above factory standard magazines. Im fine with banning thoae 50 and 100 round drums but not suddenly considering the 15-19 standard magazines as high capacity.
other stuff that might conform to the Supreme Court decision. Some of these already exist. I might want to consult law enforcement as to their concerns.
Click to expand...
If you come up with more I am interested in hearing them.
Personally I would like to see a national recognized CCW permit.
 
Fledermaus said:
Already have those in California.

And people still get shot.

In fact California leads in mass shootings 1982 to 2019
Click to expand...

Nothing we can do, I guess. Sad.

Get serious. Big state. Lots of people. The effort is to minimize the number of incidents. If you were a cop confronting a shooter, it wouldn’t matter to you that he has to reload?
 
TurtleDude said:
no doubt about that. why should you need a license to transport an unloaded firearm from your dealer to your home?
Click to expand...

Don’t need a license. Just a check before the dealer sells you the weapon that you are not an escaped mental case prisoner. Pass the check, take the gun with my blessing.
 
TurtleDude said:
criminals who won't obey such laws will like having an advantage over law abiding citizens. The reloading bit is one of the dumbest arguments the gun banners have. One-criminals who disobey laws against having guns or shooting people will ignore them. Two-criminals who premeditate their shooting sprees will have plenty of extra mags.

++ Why prohibit anything, if criminals will disobey the law? And it takes a few seconds to switch mags. I’ll take that, as I imagine most cops would.



Three-a homeowner or shopkeeper surprised by a break in doesn't have time to stuff his or her pockets full of magazines and is often limited to the bullets in the one magazine in the weapon they grab

++ Really? That’s it? The homeowner doesn’t have a bazooka either. Or a flame thrower. What is an adequate magazine size? You might want to consult with you local police department.

Four, today, my son was practicing for some speed shooting events. He was shooting two targets, reloading his Glock, shooting two more rounds at each target, reloading and shooting two shots again. three rounds each target with TWO reloads and he was doing it in under 5 seconds.
Click to expand...

++ Congratulations. How many rounds in his Glock? Look, if having to reload is a stumbling block to some lunatic shooting up a theater, church, or Wal-Mart, that’s something that might save a few lives. I’ll trade that for you inconvenience in having to switch magazines. I assume the competition with your son was not as fast, might have dropped a magazine here or there, jammed a finger, etc. Again, I assume cops are on board with mag limits.
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Congratulations. How many rounds in his Glock? Look, if having to reload is a stumbling block to some lunatic shooting up a theater, church, or Wal-Mart, that’s something that might save a few lives. I’ll trade that for you inconvenience in having to switch magazines. I assume the competition with your son was not as fast, might have dropped a magazine here or there, jammed a finger, etc. Again, I assume cops are on board with mag limits.
Click to expand...

most cops oppose it. but your main fail is you assume a magazine limit will be obeyed by a criminal. You want criminals to have an advantage over honest people unless you are so deluded as to believe that criminals are more likely to obey a magazine ban, then honest citizens
 
Chillfolks said:
I support UBC, as long as they are free or affordable (under $10) and open to everyone not just FFL's

++ What are FFL’s? No argument from me.

I personally think the current restrictions on fully autos are adequate and effective but would be ok as long as law enforcement at all levels are also restricted from having fully automatic weapons and they are limited to only military applications
magazines should be limited no no more than five rounds above factory standard magazines. Im fine with banning thoae 50 and 100 round drums but not suddenly considering the 15-19 standard magazines as high capacity.

++ Ditto, but I kind of like the idea of cops having an advantage. I say this despite nearly being shot by three cops back in the day.

If you come up with more I am interested in hearing them.
Personally I would like to see a national recognized CCW permit.
Click to expand...

++ Probably a good idea, but states’ rights-ers would object. (Assume you mean concealed carry.)
 
Nickyjo said:
A tank is not a weapon? Ask the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...

unless it is armed. I don't need a license to own a tank-but i do for the 105 smoothbore gun or the 50 cal co-axial MG
 
TurtleDude said:
unless it is armed. I don't need a license to own a tank-but i do for the 105 smoothbore gun or the 50 cal co-axial MG
Click to expand...

Interesting. Wonder what DMV requirements there might be for tanks. I assume those on tires might be purchasable.
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Probably a good idea, but states’ rights-ers would object. (Assume you mean concealed carry.)
Click to expand...

FFL is basically a gun dealer in laymans terms.

Cops advantage should be better trained and better marksman.

Stares righters object to a lot of things that become law
 
Nickyjo said:
Interesting. Wonder what DMV requirements there might be for tanks. I assume those on tires might be purchasable.
Click to expand...

there was a guy in the greater cincinnati area who owned a battle tank. He got jail time for shooting at or hitting some kid who was vandalizing his property. But you can buy one if you have the jack
 
Nickyjo said:
Sooo, we in California should work towards repeal of any restrictions.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

Nickyjo said:
California has almost twice the number of mass shootings as Florida, #2. It has almost twice the population. Makes a sort of sense, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

Except California has far, far stricter regulations pertaining to gun ownership and has banned high capacity magazines, 'Assault weapons" (ugly black rifles), etc. You can look on many a site and see "not for sale in California". Ammo regulation just took affect as well.

And still the most mass shootings in the nation.
 
Nickyjo said:
Sooo, we in California should work towards repeal of any restrictions. California has almost twice the number of mass shootings as Florida, #2. It has almost twice the population. Makes a sort of sense, don’t you think?
Click to expand...

Not if gun control was effective.
 
Fledermaus said:
Strawman.



Except California has far, far stricter regulations pertaining to gun ownership and has banned high capacity magazines, 'Assault weapons" (ugly black rifles), etc. You can look on many a site and see "not for sale in California". Ammo regulation just took affect as well.

And still the most mass shootings in the nation.
Click to expand...

I still don’t get your point. Do you think police would recommend getting rid of magazine limits, background checks, etc., or would they say we are helpless, everyone should pack a loaded gun?
 
Aberration said:
Not if gun control was effective.
Click to expand...

What’s your recommendation to deal with the highest or one of the highest rates of firearms deaths in the developed world?
 
Nickyjo said:
What’s your recommendation to deal with the highest or one of the highest rates of firearms deaths in the developed world?
Click to expand...

My recommendation is to pull ones head out of their ass and be honest about the source of real gun violence in the US. And quit pretending to do anything about it is racism.
 
Nickyjo said:
I still don’t get your point. Do you think police would recommend getting rid of magazine limits, background checks, etc., or would they say we are helpless, everyone should pack a loaded gun?
Click to expand...

Strawman....

You know exactly what my point is.

The regulations you propose have have no effect on mass shootings.
 
TurtleDude said:
if civilian police have it-then the employers of said police have admitted the firearm is useful for self defense in a civilian environment. Plus the standard individual weapon of an infantry man
Click to expand...

it means the police have been issued a weapon designed to hunt humans

an endeavor not undertaken by civilians
 
justabubba said:
it means the police have been issued a weapon designed to hunt humans

an endeavor not undertaken by civilians
Click to expand...

wrong: they are issued for self defense. and that is why other civilians ought to be able to own them. The only firearm I can think of designed for "hunting humans" would be a suppressed sniper rifle.

second error-cops are civilians too
 
The general purpose of a firearm is to be as efficient as possible at killing things. There is no debate there. The 2A also clearly understands this and is a feature, not a bug. I would point out that the homicide rate in the US has been dropping like a stone while the number of firearms, especially "Scary Black Rifles" has been exploding.

Now, you can argue that guns are dangerous, but the nationwide statistics are that more guns are negatively correlated with murder and violent crime. The reality is that the primary driver of violent crime in general is about poverty and social system failures more than anything else, which is why the bulk of the violent crime occurs in poor areas with relatively high density.
 
Aberration said:
My recommendation is to pull ones head out of their ass and be honest about the source of real gun violence in the US. And quit pretending to do anything about it is racism.
Click to expand...

Ok, my head is clear of my ass. Cleaned my ears and everything. What is the source of real gun violence in the US, and what does it possibly have to do with racism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom