• 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
I think every gun someone owns should be registered.
How do explain South Dakota's much lower crime rate to IL, given that we don't' register our guns? How would registration have made a difference in the recent shootings?

I think background checks should be done a minimum of once a year.
One of the reasons the Utah CCW is so widely reciprocated, and thus in high demand, to include myself, is because Utah runs every single permit holder's background every month for the entire life of the permit. In light of that, I think your once per-year rule is quite lax.

I don't think our government is going to come around collecting our guns for the hell of it and am not afraid our government is going to suddenly go bananas. If it did? Our little piddly arsenals would mean nothing anyway.
If you don't think a civilian militia can bog down a modern army, please explain why we're still in Afghanistan.
 
Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

It's a stupid question.

You might as well ask, “Would you be in favor of requiring pigs to be painted green if doing so had the potential to save lives.” In fact, that would be a slightly less-stupid question.
 
Illinois has, probably, the most Draconian gun laws in the nation. Still, I could easily support doing better. (I sure as hell hope we get concealed carry, so that's not what I'm talking about.)

I just renewed my FOID card. They'll do a background check and issue a new license...I'll be good to go for ten years. Ten years! No. I think every gun someone owns should be registered. I think background checks should be done a minimum of once a year.

If you've had a permanent restraining order placed on you? You should immediately lose your FOID. If you've been jailed for a violent offense? Immediate suspension. I could think of a whole list of things that should infringe upon your right to own and/or carry a firearm. Conviction of road rage would be another example.

I don't think our government is going to come around collecting our guns for the hell of it and am not afraid our government is going to suddenly go bananas. If it did? Our little piddly arsenals would mean nothing anyway.

Of course, the most significant reason why ****holes like Chicago exist is because there are high concentrations of fools who have as much trust in government as you do.
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.

I have to disagree.

I think that the evidence is very clear that gun control laws, in general increase the danger of violent crime, by insuring that potential victims are defenseless against armed criminals.
 
The problem is evil people, who are willing to cause great harm to others.

Are you meaning anyone doing any harm to anyone else? Because I can think of a few groups where that's acceptable.
 
[h=2]Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?[/h]


Yes, and I was very proud today to see country's leader state that he would support more restrictions to help save lives.
 
The problem is evil people, who are willing to cause great harm to others.

So, what do you DO to DEAL with the problem? Do you want to deal with the problem, or should we just accept that every now and again, someone will go into our schools and kill a bunch of teachers and students?

Further, if we accept that it is very hard to predict behavior, and we don't arrest or commit people who MIGHT commit a crime, how would you deal with the problem?
 
I have been a life member of the NRA since 1978. It is time for a change. I can live with a total ban on all semi auto rifles with caliber or powder capacity greater than .22 rimfire. The Clinton assault weapon ban did not go nearly far enough to make any appreciable dent in crime. You could still buy a new AR-15, it just eliminated some Chinese SKS from competing with our assault weapons for sale. You could still buy used hi-cap magazines at any gun show. It just didn't go far enough.

Enforcement of existing laws, especially making people serve full sentences for committing a crime while using a firearm, would help.

Banning "assault weapons" will have virtually no effect on reducing crime.
The majority of crimes are committed with handguns and shotguns.
 
Banning "assault weapons" will have virtually no effect on reducing crime.
The majority of crimes are committed with handguns and shotguns.

That's true, but I do remember a bank Robbery where the police were out gunned. Just for what it is worth.
 
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.

No, rights are rights and they must be upheld to their fullest. Free is dangerous.
 
Banning "assault weapons" will have virtually no effect on reducing crime.
The majority of crimes are committed with handguns and shotguns.

But it is an important "first step" to banning more types or classes of firearms. Once it is Constitutionally acceptable to ban the "scariest guns" then it is far easier to move to the next most "scary" type/class of gun. Many are already talking of magazine capacity and that nearly all magazine fed semi-automatic arms are "bad" and "unnecessary" for civilian ownership.
 
But it is an important "first step" to banning more types or classes of firearms. Once it is Constitutionally acceptable to ban the "scariest guns" then it is far easier to move to the next most "scary" type/class of gun. Many are already talking of magazine capacity and that nearly all magazine fed semi-automatic arms are "bad" and "unnecessary" for civilian ownership.

I not buy that. We had such a ban and did not ban other weapons. I think there is a case not to ban them, but the slippery slope fallacy really isn't one of them.
 
I not buy that. We had such a ban and did not ban other weapons. I think there is a case not to ban them, but the slippery slope fallacy really isn't one of them.

Did that prior partial ban "work"? The idea that only certain guns are "really dangerous" is absurd. As noted in another post, these "scary guns" are not typically used by criminals, as you pointed out with your own post that police were "outgunned" once in a CA bank robbery. Criminals that have no intention of escape, will even kill their own mothers to obtain their weapon(s) of choice and choose the least likely victims/locations to offer resistance are not likely to be concerned about any law. Picking a few cosmetic features that appear "extra scary" was clearly a first step and not the "final solution".
 
Did that prior partial ban "work"? The idea that only certain guns are "really dangerous" is absurd. As noted in another post, these "scary guns" are not typically used by criminals, as you pointed out with your own post that police were "outgunned" once in a CA bank robbery. Criminals that have no intention of escape, will even kill their own mothers to obtain their weapon(s) of choice and choose the least likely victims/locations to offer resistance are not likely to be concerned about any law. Picking a few cosmetic features that appear "extra scary" was clearly a first step and not the "final solution".

Whether it worked or not has nothing to with my point. I said there may be reasons to oppose a ban, but the slippery slope fallacy isn't one. No where in that state do I argue effectiveness either way.
 
I appreciate the question as asked, but see that many people are failing to read it for what it is.

Under the assumption that there is absolute proof that increased gun control would reduce gun-related violence, then yes, I would like to see it on the table.

I would never support a no-gun policy, however. The right to defend my family supersedes all.

So I said 'others', because it would depend on what the policy was exactly and what proof there was that it would reduce gun-violence. I am not so close-minded that I will ignore facts, however, if proof should exist (and with that being said, the facts clearly point to gun-control being the CAUSE of increased gun-related violence).
 
Banning "assault weapons" will have virtually no effect on reducing crime.
The majority of crimes are committed with handguns and shotguns.

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.
 
Whether it worked or not has nothing to with my point. I said there may be reasons to oppose a ban, but the slippery slope fallacy isn't one. No where in that state do I argue effectiveness either way.

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 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.

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.
 
First you'd have to convince me that gun control actually has the potential to reduce violence in the USA. I do not believe this is the case. There is no evidence that any existing gun control legislation has had any siginficant impact on violent crime.

I mostly agree with you, however, history does show that the existence of gun laws does affect violent crime.

uscentury.jpg
source USA Homicide Rates

As anyone can see, after the introduction of the Dick Act which took away unregulated militia and dropped the requirement for adult males to be armed, homicide rates climbed at an astronomical rate. Those who would commit such acts suddenly found that there was much less risk involved. This appear to be the only "gun control" legislation that has had a lasting and immediate affect upon, at least murder, violent crime and the impact was not positive.

Though not as clear from the graph, notice Prohibition and War on Drugs, also the sharp rise in the 1960s, it would appear at first glance that social factors, not gun control laws have a much greater affect upon murder rates. Further correlation of data would be needed to confirm this, but it is my opinion that social factors, not gun control, are the primary factors involved in violent crime.

My belief, contrary to some, is that the human mind is the only true weapon that exists, everything else that people want to call weapons are just tools for that weapon to use. The weaponised mind can find many, many tools, some more effective than others, including ones own body with which to fight and kill. Without a human mind capable of violence, none of the tools of violence serve that function.
 
Last edited:
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?

Again you're not addressing what I said.
 
Again you're not addressing what I said.

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?
 
How do explain South Dakota's much lower crime rate to IL, given that we don't' register our guns? How would registration have made a difference in the recent shootings?

One of the reasons the Utah CCW is so widely reciprocated, and thus in high demand, to include myself, is because Utah runs every single permit holder's background every month for the entire life of the permit. In light of that, I think your once per-year rule is quite lax.

If you don't think a civilian militia can bog down a modern army, please explain why we're still in Afghanistan.

Thank you very much for posting this. I had heard two nights ago there was one state that ran background checks every month, posted that on here, and was told that was incorrect. I couldn't find anything on it. Utah. Best law in the nation, in my opinion.

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.

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??

You have an excellent point re Afghanistan. I have nothing to say to this beyond I wouldn't want to live in that world.
 
Back
Top Bottom