• 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
finebead said:
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?
Click to expand...

There's really not much we can do.

As you observed, we can't arrest someone because they might commit a crime. Gun control is a proven failure as far as assuring anyone's safety other than the criminals'.

We can't always prevent crime, but we can sacrifice a great deal of essential liberty, in the vain attempt to do so, which will only make us all less free, without making us any safer.

From time to time, someone will choose to commit a terrible crime. That's just a simple, unalterable fact of life.

The best we can do, it seems, is to try to teach people from a young age the difference between right and wrong; and to make sure that people are allowed, wherever and whenever feasible, to be armed and prepared to defend themselves, as necessary. There's really not much more than that that we can do, as a society.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

“Slippery slope” is not always a fallacy. With regard to the 1994 “assault weapon” ban, the Brady organization boasted that once they got that in place, they would “show us the rest of the camel”. The promoters of this fraudulent ban openly admitted that it was a first step, to open the way for even more outrageous violations of the Second Amendment to come afterward.
 
fredmertzz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your premise is nonsense. You might as well argue about a “What if…?” scenario in which it is absolutely proven that painting pigs in different colors has a substantial effect on safety.

This whole thread is an example of the GIGO principle at work. If you want to have a rational discussion, you need to start it based on a rational premise, and not some disproven left-wing statist fairy tale.
 
Catawba said:
Quite the analogy Jerry, we see a lot of massacres that result from pot and prostitution, don't we? :cool:
Click to expand...
I'm a big supporter of "because I want to get ****-faced tonight" pot use, but prostitution is directly linked to the human sex-slave black market, rape, child abuse, and drug abuse.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
“Slippery slope” is not always a fallacy. With regard to the 1994 “assault weapon” ban, the Brady organization boasted that once they got that in place, they would “show us the rest of the camel”. The promoters of this fraudulent ban openly admitted that it was a first step, to open the way for even more outrageous violations of the Second Amendment to come afterward.
Click to expand...

Did happen? You can find an idiot saying anything. Finding one doesn't make it not a slippery slope fallacy. You have to show there is a reasonable expectation that it will happen. In America that would be really hard to do.
 
Jerry said:
I'm a big supporter of "because I want to get ****-faced tonight" pot use, but prostitution is directly linked to the human sex-slave black market, rape, child abuse, and drug abuse.
Click to expand...

How many innocent civilians in the US die as a result of prostitution each year?
 
Boo Radley said:
Did happen? You can find an idiot saying anything. Finding one doesn't make it not a slippery slope fallacy. You have to show there is a reasonable expectation that it will happen. In America that would be really hard to do.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to go looking for proof, right now, but I am quite sure that I remember seeing TV coverage of Sarah Brady herself, boasting about “showing us the rest of the camel”. I think the only reason we didn't see “the rest of the camel” was the outcome of the elections later that same year, when a very large portion of the Congressman and Senators who supported the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban were voted out of office.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't have time to go looking for proof, right now, but I am quite sure that I remember seeing TV coverage of Sarah Brady herself, boasting about “showing us the rest of the camel”. I think the only reason we didn't see “the rest of the camel” was the outcome of the elections later that same year, when a very large portion of the Congressman and Senators who supported the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban were voted out of office.
Click to expand...

It would matter at all if she did. She had and has no real power. We've never come close in this country to banning all weapons, and frankly I don't believe we ver will. But for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy, there must be at least a realistic possibility of it. Merely quote someone who can't do it doesn't make the it anymore likely.
 
lizzie said:
I don't favor more gun control, first because of the 2nd amendment, and its importance
Click to expand...

But why is it so important in the 21st century?

and secondly, because I don't believe it would have any effect on lessening violence in this culture. What we have is a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
Click to expand...

Is that not an oxymoron?

Paul
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
It would matter at all if she did. She had and has no real power. We've never come close in this country to banning all weapons, and frankly I don't believe we ver will. But for it to not be a slippery slope fallacy, there must be at least a realistic possibility of it. Merely quote someone who can't do it doesn't make the it anymore likely.
Click to expand...

Up until the 1994 elections, she certainly did have real power. She and her organization were the major driving force behind the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. It probably wouldn't have happened without her efforts. And the “Brady Bill”*before that. I think there is every reason to believe that had the 1994 elections gone differently, she would have succeeded in getting even more outrageous, unconstitutional gun restrictions passed into law.
 
gunner said:
lizzie said:
But why is it so important in the 21st century?



Is that not an oxymoron?

Paul
Click to expand...

It is important in the 21st century for the same reason it was important in the 1700's.

Oxymoron, how? The problem is not the guns, or the gun numbers, but the cultural attitudes of those who use them for destructive purposes. Our culture increasingly glorifies criminals and violence. Take and look at our large urban areas to see that this is so. Take a look as many of our movies, and violent video games, as an example.
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well duh. If they weren't stupid enough to use a gun, then they probably wouldn't of been stupid enough to carry out a massacre.

You are using the gun and magazine capacity to say that the attempt or completion of a massacre wouldn't or couldn't occur. Really?

So at around the same time, a nutjob in China didn't attempt something similar with a knife? I think that example alone pretty much disproves any train of thought that guns cause the problem.

We know that you cannot take guns away. Even if you stopped selling them today, there are still millions in existence. Even high capacity clips, if you banned the sale of them today, all the ones currently out there still exist. Can you confiscate them, no, for one thing, if you try, they will be hidden, for another the Constitution protects against the passing of Ex Post Facto laws.

Even with very strict gun laws, do you actually believe someone attempting or plotting to commit a crime is going to care about a gun law. Tell me, how many shootings are carried out with handguns and gang-bangers under 21? Or with other guns when they are under 18? You can reduce the theft and illegal sales of guns, but you cannot eliminate it.

Since ridding our society of guns is pretty much an impossibility, we need to focus on workable solutions, not someone's fantasy.

What has shown to work? Refer back to one of my previous post, the one with the chart. Check out the murder rates when pretty much every adult male was required to own a gun and the murder rate after. You probably don't like the idea and would never support it, but history does show us that by arming pretty much everyone, murder rates were very low. We have an historical example of something that is proven to work. I admit, that I would still support not letting confirmed mental cases and felons have guns.

We cannot get rid of guns, so we have to learn to live with them. Other than "lets get rid of them all", do you know of any other way to get control of gun violence, other than what I said above, that is proven or at least logical and doable that can, if not end, then at least reduce this trend of violence to the point that existed in 1900?
 
lizzie said:
gunner said:
It is important in the 21st century for the same reason it was important in the 1700's.
Click to expand...

Please explain?

Oxymoron, how? The problem is not the guns, or the gun numbers, but the cultural attitudes of those who use them for destructive purposes. Our culture increasingly glorifies criminals and violence. Take and look at our large urban areas to see that this is so. Take a look as many of our movies, and violent video games, as an example.
Click to expand...

You are listing (quite correctly IMO) contributing factors that need to be proved/disproved, as actually being contributory. Do you not feel a gun (which is the optimal device for inflicting violence) has a part in that 'Cultural problem'?

Paul
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Our rights should never be subject to some perceived benefits that the loss of these rights might give us. Such "benefits", if they can be called that, would always be temporary while the loss of freedom would be permanent.
 
gunner said:
lizzie said:
gunner said:
Please explain?



You are listing (quite correctly IMO) contributing factors that need to be proved/disproved, as actually being contributory. Do you not feel a gun (which is the optimal device for inflicting violence) has a part in that 'Cultural problem'?

Paul
Click to expand...

No, I don't believe that. The problem is not the tools, but the individuals who use them. Guns are just as available today as they were a couple of hundred years ago, maybe even less so.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Up until the 1994 elections, she certainly did have real power. She and her organization were the major driving force behind the fraudulent “assault weapon” ban. It probably wouldn't have happened without her efforts. And the “Brady Bill”*before that. I think there is every reason to believe that had the 1994 elections gone differently, she would have succeeded in getting even more outrageous, unconstitutional gun restrictions passed into law.
Click to expand...

I quite disagree. The Brady bill was far from a ban, and assault weapons never had a huge following. But there was nothing close to banning all weapons. Congress would never even take up such a notion.
 
lizzie said:
I don't favor more gun control, first because of the 2nd amendment, and its importance, and secondly, because I don't believe it would have any effect on lessening violence in this culture. What we have is a cultural problem, not a gun problem.
Click to expand...


It is important in the 21st century for the same reason it was important in the 1700's.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain why you feel what was important in the 1700s is as important to the 21st century?

No, I don't believe that. The problem is not the tools, but the individuals who use them. Guns are just as available today as they were a couple of hundred years ago, maybe even less so.
Click to expand...

IIRC America has around 400 million guns in circulation. You do not see any link between guns and violence?

Paul
 
lizzie said:
No, I don't believe that. The problem is not the tools, but the individuals who use them. Guns are just as available today as they were a couple of hundred years ago, maybe even less so.
Click to expand...

I do think if you look they are more available. One of the historical reasons for the second amendment was to remove obstacles before those who might participate in the citizen militia.
 
gunner said:
Can you please explain why you feel what was important in the 1700s is as important to the 21st century?



IIRC America has around 400 million guns in circulation. You do not see any link between guns and violence?

Paul
Click to expand...

It is as important today, as it was 200 years ago, because it is our constitutional right to own and bear arms. It may not be important to you, in your own culture, but it is a part of American culture.

As I stated earlier, it is not the guns which are the problem. It is the collective psyche of the people making up a society. People who are violent will be violent, regardless of the tools at their disposal. Those of us who support gun rights, do so, because it is our constitutional right, and because we believe strongly in the right to self-defense. Our society is huge and diverse, which naturally creates conflict.
 
Boo Radley said:
I quite disagree. The Brady bill was far from a ban, and assault weapons never had a huge following. But there was nothing close to banning all weapons. Congress would never even take up such a notion.
Click to expand...

The previous ban also only banned imported "assault weapons" not American made ones. No Ak-47 knock offs (as far as I know the actual AK-47 from Kalashnikov, made in Russia, was never legally imported to the US for commercial sale, lots of SKSs, AKSs and AKMs, among others but not real AKs ) but lots of AR-15s and knock offs. No Uzi's or HK MP-5's, but hey, lots of Ingram Arms Mac-10s and -11s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom