• 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

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%
  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%
  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%

  • Total voters
    148
It would slow down the shooter and give people a chance to rush him while he reloaded. If there were no advantage to a semi auto rifle, the army would still issue 1903 Springfields, but no army today goes to war with bolt actions, because they are too slow. You can't eliminate all homicides, but in these school situations, you can limit the carnage. The other option is to go the British route and store all guns at gun clubs and only allow their use there, and I would not push that far. There are clear needs for firearms in rural america.
The VA Tech shooter shot adults using only handguns which required reloading. A college campus full of unarmed victims waiting under their desk to be the next guy shot.

Ever and always...the first response to problems is 'pass a gun law'. Perhaps there are better solutions to the problem, beginning with teaching people how to not lie down and what for their opportunity to die.
 
Correct - I am addressing what you did not (or will not) say. You took great pains to say that there are reasons to oppose an "assault wepons" ban, yet named none. I am asserting that "incremental" chipping away at the second amendment is what is being sought, not using (requiring) any Constitutional action at all. Redefining, or narrowing what is a "legal" firearm, is precisely the action that many are offering - what are you suggesting as the "reason" to not do so?

Not making the argument, so why would I make it. Instead, I took issue with your use of a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
I can't explain South Dakota's record. But if we are to make a difference, then we as a nation need to find out.
I will tell you our secret, and it has nothing to do with guns either way: We have a great local economy. Last I checked I our unemployment was 4.2, half the national average, and we have great career opportunities in SD and in the surrounding states (someone who's family is in SD may work in Gillette, WO, for example).

Re gun registration. I'm not exactly sure what good it would do. But I'm sure experts have some ideas. Why do we register cars and boats? And what good is a failed monthly background check do if the only thing it accomplishes is to revoke someone's license? Who puts teeth in that failed check and collects the guns??
The problem is that guns are NOT treated like cars. Car registration has never been used for mass car confiscation. Gun registration has been used for mass confiscation by many countries.

Gun aren't treated like cars, in that you can't get a gun license which all 50 states are forced to honor. In public, if you have a car, you're normal, you blend right into the crowd, but if you have a gun you're treated with suspicion, even-though cars kill more people. You don't see anyone clamoring to make texting-while-shooting laws. If you own a large collection of guns, you're thought of as paranoid, but if you own a large collection of cars, you're seen as a harmless collector.
 
I will tell you our secret, and it has nothing to do with guns either way: We have a great local economy. Last I checked I our unemployment was 4.2, half the national average, and we have great career opportunities in SD and in the surrounding states (someone who's family is in SD may work in Gillette, WO, for example).


The problem is that guns are NOT treated like cars. Car registration has never been used for mass car confiscation. Gun registration has been used for mass confiscation by many countries.

Gun aren't treated like cars, in that you can't get a gun license which all 50 states are forced to honor. In public, if you have a car, you're normal, you blend right into the crowd, but if you have a gun you're treated with suspicion, even-though cars kill more people. You don't see anyone clamoring to make texting-while-shooting laws. If you own a large collection of guns, you're thought of as paranoid, but if you own a large collection of cars, you're seen as a harmless collector.

Well! Now there's a good point. Why do we not have a Federal Firearms License that is honored in all 50 states? I don't disagree with much of what you said here. Oh! South Dakota's employment numbers are awesome!!
 
I doubt it.

Gun control laws only affect those who legally own firearms.

It's likely the majority of crazies and would-be criminals don't care about the law that much.
 
I can't explain South Dakota's record. But if we are to make a difference, then we as a nation need to find out.

Actually, I don't believe that the difference is all that to explain. Simply look at the differences in Population Density, Unemployment, welfare rates, Economic disparity, poverty levels, etc.

Population Density alone could account for a lot of it. There is no doubt, at least not to me, that the majority of violent crimes happen in areas of high population Density.

I am hesitant to include racial factors. Blacks and Hispanics, the two largest minority races in the US, seem to kill each other more than they kill members of a different race. Also, I don't believe it is actually related to race but to economic/social factors affecting a large part of these races.

Regardless of race, violent crime seems to occur much more often in poor, high population density areas. Since S. Dakota has far fewer of these than Illinois, they have less violent crime.

Also, although I haven't seen direct evidence, I believe that S. Dakota also has much less economic disparity among it's population.

The disparity in crime rates and difference in gun laws can lead someone to the conclusion that these social factors, have a much greater affect on violent crime than gun laws too. Other social factors to look at also is number of single parent families, divorce rates, religious affiliations, educational environments, percentage of hunters and gun ownership. These would give us a better understanding of the Discipline given children, stress levels experienced by children, and whether or not they have been introduced to and taught gun safety and proper use.

I don't know how others were taught, but when, as a kid, I got my first BB gun, the fist time the barrel pointed at a person, I got it smacked out of my hands. A quote by John Wayne, from Big Jake can pretty much sum up my years as a gun owner,

"There are only two reasons to kill, defense and meat."
 
I would be for a ban on assault rifles if I didnt know they would still be available illegally. I personally find it hilarious that there are people that want to legalize drugs because they say you can get them illegally. Guns are the same thing...and they were the same thing.
I dont believe civilians have a need for assault rifles personally, but you cant stop people from obtaining them by making them illegal.
 
Do you believe that all those 30 round magazines are going to disappear overnight?

In schools situations, there is nothing you can really do to limit the carnage by restricting magazine capacity.
Little kids aren't going to rush a shooter.
I have money set aside, and as soon as it looks like they'll pass an AWB, I'm buying an AR and a few 60 round mags.
 
I have already posted one thread in regards to the mass shootings, trying to bring together ideas on the most effective way to slow gun related violence and try to eliminate these mass shootings.

This poll is more black and white because I am simply wondering would you be in favor of more gun control if it had the potential to reduce violence.
Does anyone know how Lanza got the guns that he did have?
 
I would be for a ban on assault rifles if I didnt know they would still be available illegally. I personally find it hilarious that there are people that want to legalize drugs because they say you can get them illegally. Guns are the same thing...and they were the same thing.
I dont believe civilians have a need for assault rifles personally, but you cant stop people from obtaining them by making them illegal.
Assault rifles been banned since 1986.

There's a way to get one if you're a licensed collector and have a lot of money, but you can't go down to Wall-Mart and buy an assault rifle.

Anyway, no assault rifle was used in either of these shootings.
 
I have some very good news for you, then:


We're already part of the unorganized militia. This is how we can be drafted, because we're already affiliated with the military by default...the state can just 'call us up'. They're not enslaving a free man, they're activating a militiaman. The very purpose of the Selective Service is to record exactly who is in the unorganized militia should they need to be activated.

I've long been of the opinion that a 2-year term or service should be mandatory for everyone upon turning 18, because when you turn 18 you become part of the militia whether you like it or not. This is forced on you like taxes, so IMO just roll with it, use it to your advantage. Even if you choose not to continue to serve in the military, you are still in the militia and so you should have some base-level training to accompany it. You could be summarily deputized during a natural disaster before relief comes. You could be part of a neighborhood watch, etc. These civil duties would be greatly served by basic military training.





*******

Here we had to link to this law yeat again. We have to keep repeating ourselves, so rather than write it out manually over and over and over, a lot of us just save it to a word doc.

Yes, there are some of the basics in law, but it is not complete. A gun owner should go to at least quarterly meetings and annual training, a few hours at urban style range. The member should pass some evaluation. Not allowed to have a gun otherwise.
btw, I was in the USAF from June '68 'till '72. I did very well at the range. I was a target if the Viet Cong if they ever discovered what we did in that building on the perimeter. I was not allowed to have a gun because I didn't need one to do my military job.
 
If a magic wand were available, and I could take ALL guns, past, present and future and place them into the deepest depths of the ocean I would be the first to turn mine in. But That's fantasy.

Guns are here. Here to stay. If Mr. Evil gets a gun then so do I.

If I thought more regulation would have saved even one of those precious little lives, I would be all for it. But it can't and I'm not.

Instead, I am going to sharpen my shooting skills.
 
If a magic wand were available, and I could take ALL guns, past, present and future and place them into the deepest depths of the ocean I would be the first to turn mine in. But That's fantasy.

I wouldn't, I still like the meat from hunting that is not available in the super market and there are still coyotes, raccoons, possums, wild hogs and others that still present a danger to myself, my domesticated animals and garden/crops in my areas. The county does have a trapper/hunter for these problems, but only one for the whole county. The places where I live, these critters, not stupid humans are the main threat.
 
Yes, there are some of the basics in law, but it is not complete. A gun owner should go to at least quarterly meetings and annual training, a few hours at urban style range. The member should pass some evaluation. Not allowed to have a gun otherwise.

A clear violation of the 2nd amendment.

However, if it were a requirement for concealed carry that could work. Heck if it were good training from the likes of Massad Ayoob or Chris Costa, I wouldn't miss a single one. Especially if its free range time/ammo and free training. But since this infringement is being made for the sake of the taxpayer's safety, such training should be on their dime.

btw, I was in the USAF from June '68 'till '72. I did very well at the range. I was a target if the Viet Cong if they ever discovered what we did in that building on the perimeter. I was not allowed to have a gun because I didn't need one to do my military job.

Thanks for your service.
 
I would be for a ban on assault rifles if I didnt know they would still be available illegally. I personally find it hilarious that there are people that want to legalize drugs because they say you can get them illegally. Guns are the same thing...and they were the same thing.
I dont believe civilians have a need for assault rifles personally, but you cant stop people from obtaining them by making them illegal.

The lesson is, and has always been "Prohibition DOESN'T WORK!"

No matter how many history lessons on the Volstead act people skip.
 
This is my first time posting here but I will put in my two cents, if gun control would guarantee less violence I would support it in a heart beat. However, I feel like it is only one small part of the solution to solve our violence problem. We must come up with a more comprehensive way to approach the violence problem. Whether that is better mental health awareness or something else, I do not know. I just can't imagine simply taking away people's guns being the answer.
 
That is nonsense - once you remove that pesky "shall not be infringed" then what is left of the right of the people to keep and bear arms? First you define "classes" of firearms, then you decide which of them may be subtracted from those "allowed". That was precisely the intent of the "assault rifle" ban. You even go so far as stating that effectiveness is not your concern - then what is?

It was done in the 1930's with submachine guns. They ended up off the street and there were no added actions against the ownership of other weapons.
 
Take away guns and you have a few less shootings maybe. Doesn't address domestic abuse, rape, assaults, homicides by other means, etc. Address violence instead, and you are going after the true cause.
 
If you want less shootings, ending the war on drugs would be a far better choice. Never having had it in the first place, and we wouldn't have the gangs, the wealthy Mexican cartels, so many of our countrymen behind bars, the highest incarceration rate, and all that prison spending.
 
Connecticut currently has an assault weapons ban.

The Bushmaster used in the school shooting was not an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law. The Bushmaster was not banned under the last Federal AWB, either. The rifle was legally perchesed and owned, and it's owner did not participate in any gun-related crime ever in her life.
 
Yes, there are some of the basics in law, but it is not complete. A gun owner should go to at least quarterly meetings and annual training, a few hours at urban style range. The member should pass some evaluation.
What are your personal qualifications validating this opinion? Why should we pay you any attention to you at all?
 
Banning "assault weapons" will have virtually no effect on reducing crime.
The majority of crimes are committed with handguns and shotguns.

We are talking about reducing massacres of innocent people. In order to believe that banning guns that accept high capacity magazines would have no effect on reducing the massacres, one would have to ignore that the guns available in the US that accept high capacity magazines are the guns of choice for those carrying out massacres in both the US and Mexico.
 
The lesson is, and has always been "Prohibition DOESN'T WORK!"

No matter how many history lessons on the Volstead act people skip.
Like the Left says about pot and prostitution: Legalize it so it can be regulated and taxed.
 
Like the Left says about pot and prostitution: Legalize it so it can be regulated and taxed.


Quite the analogy Jerry, we see a lot of massacres that result from pot and prostitution, don't we? :cool:
 
Well, here's a conservative voice of reason. (Yes, there are still a few out there.)

I could have written this myself.

This guy was awarded the highest NRA score for all four terms he served in congress. He's definitely no liberal, to say the least. But he still makes sense.

NBCNews.com Video Player
 
Back
Top Bottom