• 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
because massive government agencies have said so.

I realize its hard for many people to fathom but most of us with CCWs are better shots and as well or better trained than most cops

the government agencies spent years determining what were the best choices for self defense. I think its reasonable for HONEST law abiding to look to groups that have studied the issue and they all come up with the same type of weapon. when I was involved in a shooting the DA asked me in front of the Grand Jury why I had the gun I did and I said its the one my local department had listed as approved backup or off duty weapons and the DA noted that was a very good reason

I note that many of the antigun nuts assume that we are using these weapons improperly without understanding that felons and criminals are not allowed to owning guns

But you are NOT a police officer and you do not have the same job or duties as they do that require you to have the same weaponry as they do.

I do not disagree with you or take issue with you that you perhaps do have superior shooting skills compared to some or even most officers. I really do not see that as the issue here.
 
But you are NOT a police officer and you do not have the same job or duties as they do that require you to have the same weaponry as they do.

I do not disagree with you or take issue with you that you perhaps do have superior shooting skills compared to some or even most officers. I really do not see that as the issue here.



that is not the issue. the issue is when I looked for a handgun for self defense back before I really became someone so well trained that I help train other individuals in self defense, I figured my local department was a good choice.

It would be like a serious college tennis player trying to decide what gear to use-and looking to a pro who had a similar style

when I was a top collegiate athlete in another racquet sport, I asked my coach what gear I should use and he suggested that of a top player whose style I had a similarity to. I wasn't a pro level player but that was good advice.

what you are trying to suggest is that self defense for cops is different based on their status and thus the guns should be different. Or that society should ignore the fact that the situations are almost always the same in terms of probabilities but cops should be allowed more efficient weapons because they serve the state


What I am saying is that cops and other civilians are fighting against the same criminals in usually the same physical environment and thus the legal environment should be the same
 
that is not the issue. the issue is when I looked for a handgun for self defense back before I really became someone so well trained that I help train other individuals in self defense, I figured my local department was a good choice.

It would be like a serious college tennis player trying to decide what gear to use-and looking to a pro who had a similar style

when I was a top collegiate athlete in another racquet sport, I asked my coach what gear I should use and he suggested that of a top player whose style I had a similarity to. I wasn't a pro level player but that was good advice.

what you are trying to suggest is that self defense for cops is different based on their status and thus the guns should be different. Or that society should ignore the fact that the situations are almost always the same in terms of probabilities but cops should be allowed more efficient weapons because they serve the state


What I am saying is that cops and other civilians are fighting against the same criminals in usually the same physical environment and thus the legal environment should be the same

Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.

And I think this is what divides so many people on this issue.

I have said this many times: I support the right of a person and the need of a person to have a firearm for personal defense, home defense, business defense, hunting, target shooting, competition use, and other such uses. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans do as well. Outside of the most extreme anti-gun people, I really see no movement to change this.

I do not support people having armories. I do not support people having military weapons that have large capacity magazines. I do not support people having automatic weapons.

HONEST QUESTION FOR YOU TURTLE: much of this then comes down to the idea that somehow someday you are going to need your armory or your weapons to do battle with the police and armed forces of the nation in some sort of armed resistance to tyranny. And that is why you want all this stuff to put you on the same level with the police and military.

If you want to believe that, it is your right to believe that. I think it borders on serious mental delusion that smacks of paranoia. But that is just my opinion.

The point is that as long as that is the ace card the gun lobby and some of its supporter hold up their sleeve, there will be no bridging the gulf between those who support common sense gun policies and the more strident and militant gun forces.

And yes, I taught history and government for 33 years and know all about how the USA got started and some of the motives for the Founders. Yes - I know them and accept them. And it does not change my opinion on this one iota jot or tittle.
 
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.

Other: If it were proven to actually work, my answer would be yes. I think the current restrictions are adequate with the possible exception of barring the (registered) mentally ill from purchasing. Previous bans have shown no decrease in firearm related deaths.
 
Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.

And I think this is what divides so many people on this issue.

I have said this many times: I support the right of a person and the need of a person to have a firearm for personal defense, home defense, business defense, hunting, target shooting, competition use, and other such uses. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans do as well. Outside of the most extreme anti-gun people, I really see no movement to change this.

I do not support people having armories. I do not support people having military weapons that have large capacity magazines. I do not support people having automatic weapons.

HONEST QUESTION FOR YOU TURTLE: much of this then comes down to the idea that somehow someday you are going to need your armory or your weapons to do battle with the police and armed forces of the nation in some sort of armed resistance to tyranny. And that is why you want all this stuff to put you on the same level with the police and military.

If you want to believe that, it is your right to believe that. I think it borders on serious mental delusion that smacks of paranoia. But that is just my opinion.

The point is that as long as that is the ace card the gun lobby and some of its supporter hold up their sleeve, there will be no bridging the gulf between those who support common sense gun policies and the more strident and militant gun forces.

And yes, I taught history and government for 33 years and know all about how the USA got started and some of the motives for the Founders. Yes - I know them and accept them. And it does not change my opinion on this one iota jot or tittle.

Why do we have nukes? Deterent.

Why do citizen have arms? Deterent

/story
 
Why do we have nukes? Deterent.

Why do citizen have arms? Deterent

/story

Why do you reproduce my writings and then not speak to a single thing in it but simply pretend to use it to make some statement which adds nothing to the issues raised in that same post?
 
"High-capacity ammunition magazines are the common thread that runs through most mass shootings: giving attackers the ability to fire numerous bullets without reloading. Last week's attack in Arizona joins a long list of mass shootings made possible by the easy availability of high-capacity ammunition magazines: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's, Stockton, and all too many others.

Earlier this week, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) announced plans to introduce federal legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. A similar ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines was in place for 10 years as part of the now-expired federal assault weapons ban.

Here are just 10 of the U.S. mass shootings that involved high-capacity ammunition magazines."

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)

So there's 10 such cases. Good for you. Now it'd need the other end of the equation I placed forth....how many have been sold.

If the number is around 10, then your assertion is correct....banning them would only largely infringe upon those seeking to use them to shoot bunches of innocent people. If the number is in the thousands, then you're absolutely wrong, and the people being largely infringed are law abiding citizens who are having their liberty reduced in the name of little real additional security.
 
Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.

And I think this is what divides so many people on this issue.

I have said this many times: I support the right of a person and the need of a person to have a firearm for personal defense, home defense, business defense, hunting, target shooting, competition use, and other such uses. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans do as well. Outside of the most extreme anti-gun people, I really see no movement to change this.

I do not support people having armories. I do not support people having military weapons that have large capacity magazines. I do not support people having automatic weapons.

HONEST QUESTION FOR YOU TURTLE: much of this then comes down to the idea that somehow someday you are going to need your armory or your weapons to do battle with the police and armed forces of the nation in some sort of armed resistance to tyranny. And that is why you want all this stuff to put you on the same level with the police and military.

If you want to believe that, it is your right to believe that. I think it borders on serious mental delusion that smacks of paranoia. But that is just my opinion.

The point is that as long as that is the ace card the gun lobby and some of its supporter hold up their sleeve, there will be no bridging the gulf between those who support common sense gun policies and the more strident and militant gun forces.

And yes, I taught history and government for 33 years and know all about how the USA got started and some of the motives for the Founders. Yes - I know them and accept them. And it does not change my opinion on this one iota jot or tittle.
More than "like", Haymarket, but "love".
Extremely well written, I agree 100%.
But, strangle, I admit, we must work on limiting those potential gun owners to 100% sane and stable men and women AND the FAMILIES.
This is one tough assignment...much easier is the banning of rapid fire assault weapons....simply reinstate the law that was repealed by gun lovers a generation ago....... with special exemptions ?? for Dick Tracy, aka TurtleDude ???
He seems to forget one thing about guns.....Well trained cops are trained in how NOT to use the deadly weapon...is our Turtle trained the same way ???
 
More than "like", Haymarket, but "love".
Extremely well written, I agree 100%.
But, strangle, I admit, we must work on limiting those potential gun owners to 100% sane and stable men and women AND the FAMILIES.
This is one tough assignment...much easier is the banning of rapid fire assault weapons....simply reinstate the law that was repealed by gun lovers a generation ago....... with special exemptions ?? for Dick Tracy, aka TurtleDude ???
He seems to forget one thing about guns.....Well trained cops are trained in how NOT to use the deadly weapon...is our Turtle trained the same way ???

Thank you for the very kind and supportive words.

I suspect that Turtle does indeed have a great deal of knowledge and skill in both the use of weapons as well as in the exercise of proper judgment about when to use them. I do not question or doubt this for a moment. Having said that, we do not make policy or law for the individual who may well be the exception to the rule. As such, the needs of a professional police officer are vastly different than the needs of a civilian.

We have to learn how to protect the needs of our civilians and at the same time shape the kind of society we want to live in so that we can get some sort of handle on these issues plaguing us as people and as a nation.
 
Why do we have nukes? Deterent.

Why do citizen have arms? Deterent

/story

Strange reasoning.....but maybe not, from a conservative...
IMO, its far better to have the police armed than every citizen....
You equate "citizens" with highly reponsible national leaders ??
Yes, Russia....they could have, but never did....nor did we....
But, of course, many citizens do need added protection...but not to the extent of making a war out of this "personal security".
 
what has biden's track record been for 40 years?

Im talking about this: "IN reality, Obumble, Biden and their toadies were planning on trying to ban guns all along once Obumble won the election"

Obama and Biden made no statements about gun control during the electoral campaigns. What is your source or information that Biden and Obama really had some plan before this tragedy with the issue of gun control?
 
Strange reasoning.....but maybe not, from a conservative...
IMO, its far better to have the police armed than every citizen....
You equate "citizens" with highly reponsible national leaders ??
Yes, Russia....they could have, but never did....nor did we....
But, of course, many citizens do need added protection...but not to the extent of making a war out of this "personal security".

Can the police always be there immediately when a citizen needs their protection? In Tucson, it was reported it took police 20 minutes to arrive. I haven't seen response times for other mass shooting, but from the number of victims at each, I would say way too slow.

Does our current legal system adequately reform offenders? I would say not. In fact, reform institutions appear more to have become trade schools for criminals than acting to reform or discourage crime.

Can armed individuals prevent all crime? No. Can they prevent a large amount of crime? History would tend to tell us that the answer is Yes.

What do you use as the basis that "National leaders" are "highly responsible"? If they are so responsible, when was the last time mankind had a single day where there were not wars somewhere on the planet? We have not destroyed ourselves with a nuclear Holocaust yet, so it could be argued that those currently possessing nukes have at least, so far, acted somewhat responsibly on that issue.

You seem to be equating large numbers of personal weapons with "making war out of this "personal security"". Have the majority, or even a significant percentage of them been involved in violent crimes? Even if they believe in the possibility of a revolution, have a significant percentage of them risen up and attacked the citizenry or government? Should the many be punished and have their rights limited or taken away because of the actions of the few? Should we apply that kind of punishment philosophy to all things, or only guns?
 
Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.

And I think this is what divides so many people on this issue.

I have said this many times: I support the right of a person and the need of a person to have a firearm for personal defense, home defense, business defense, hunting, target shooting, competition use, and other such uses. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans do as well. Outside of the most extreme anti-gun people, I really see no movement to change this.

I do not support people having armories. I do not support people having military weapons that have large capacity magazines. I do not support people having automatic weapons.

HONEST QUESTION FOR YOU TURTLE: much of this then comes down to the idea that somehow someday you are going to need your armory or your weapons to do battle with the police and armed forces of the nation in some sort of armed resistance to tyranny. And that is why you want all this stuff to put you on the same level with the police and military.

If you want to believe that, it is your right to believe that. I think it borders on serious mental delusion that smacks of paranoia. But that is just my opinion.

The point is that as long as that is the ace card the gun lobby and some of its supporter hold up their sleeve, there will be no bridging the gulf between those who support common sense gun policies and the more strident and militant gun forces.

And yes, I taught history and government for 33 years and know all about how the USA got started and some of the motives for the Founders. Yes - I know them and accept them. And it does not change my opinion on this one iota jot or tittle.

you confuse legal status with the situation that confronts people

what you are saying is that cops deserve better stuff than other citizens because you value the lives of those who serve the state higher than those who pay the salaries of those living off the public dime

and automatic weapons are not at issue in the current emotogasm that your party is engaged in

when cops confront criminals they usually have backup, its often on terms the cops have created and they have radios to call for help. They have body armor. when a citizen who is not an LEO confronts a criminal its almost always due to the criminal having the initiative, That suggests non LEOs should have greater firepower than cops who have teams and squads and backup

but we get your drift, you think that honest people cannot be trusted with the same guns cops have because again-you trust government over others
 
Why do we have nukes? Deterent.

Why do citizen have arms? Deterent

/story


I think if the SHTF, my suggestion would be to kill those who advocated the government start a war on its own citizens. take out the soft targets, the politicians and those who egged them on. that is the best way to stop tyranny
 
Im talking about this: "IN reality, Obumble, Biden and their toadies were planning on trying to ban guns all along once Obumble won the election"

Obama and Biden made no statements about gun control during the electoral campaigns. What is your source or information that Biden and Obama really had some plan before this tragedy with the issue of gun control?

you voted for Biden and you have no clue about his track record on guns all the years he has been in office?
 
you voted for Biden and you have no clue about his track record on guns all the years he has been in office?

No i do he's been in favor of more strict gun controls. But he and Obama have not mentioned anything about gun control before this but if you have a source or information that states that they had a secret plan all along please share it.
 
No i do he's been in favor of more strict gun controls. But he and Obama have not mentioned anything about gun control before this but if you have a source or information that states that they had a secret plan all along please share it.

someone spends 36 years trying to ban guns and they don't talk about it before a tough election

wow gullible much?
 
Oh but I think that is exactly the issue. You are not a cop. To pretend that the standards and equipment needs that apply to them as professional police officers apply to civilians is simply not a solid argument.

That is a difference and I suspect most people recognize that difference. You are NOT fighting criminals the way police are. You are NOT in the same environment they are as officers performing their duties.

And I think this is what divides so many people on this issue.

I have said this many times: I support the right of a person and the need of a person to have a firearm for personal defense, home defense, business defense, hunting, target shooting, competition use, and other such uses. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Americans do as well. Outside of the most extreme anti-gun people, I really see no movement to change this.

I do not support people having armories. I do not support people having military weapons that have large capacity magazines. I do not support people having automatic weapons.

HONEST QUESTION FOR YOU TURTLE: much of this then comes down to the idea that somehow someday you are going to need your armory or your weapons to do battle with the police and armed forces of the nation in some sort of armed resistance to tyranny. And that is why you want all this stuff to put you on the same level with the police and military.

If you want to believe that, it is your right to believe that. I think it borders on serious mental delusion that smacks of paranoia. But that is just my opinion.

The point is that as long as that is the ace card the gun lobby and some of its supporter hold up their sleeve, there will be no bridging the gulf between those who support common sense gun policies and the more strident and militant gun forces.

And yes, I taught history and government for 33 years and know all about how the USA got started and some of the motives for the Founders. Yes - I know them and accept them. And it does not change my opinion on this one iota jot or tittle.

What threat do police officers encounter that the general public does not? I am not talking about SWAT teams or snipers, but simply the normal, officer on the beat's everyday primary carry handgun. The typical service weapon is now a medium to large frame semi-automatic pistol in 9mm to .45 ACP caliber. I personally prefer a smaller caliber (.380), for less recoil, less likelyhood of penetration through the target and more control of a second shot (or two).

What is the Best Pistol for Police Officers?
 
someone spends 36 years trying to ban guns and they don't talk about it before a tough election

wow gullible much?

Lets see here takes the VP position. Doesnt say anything first 4 years. Then a massacre happens in school then does. Maybe guns werent his main issue and really didnt care until a huge massacre like this happens.
 
Thank you for the very kind and supportive words.

I suspect that Turtle does indeed have a great deal of knowledge and skill in both the use of weapons as well as in the exercise of proper judgment about when to use them. I do not question or doubt this for a moment. Having said that, we do not make policy or law for the individual who may well be the exception to the rule. …

The vast majority of gun owners are not criminals, and the vast majority of guns owned by common citizens are never used to commit crimes. Surely a criminal who uses a firearm to commit a violent crime is at least as much an exception as someone like Turtledude is. And you advocate useless and severe restrictions on an explicitly-affirmed Constitutional right for all Americans, based on the actions of a few exceptions. This is inconsistent with your statement that “…we do not make policy or law for the individual who may well be the exception to the rule.”
 
If you bought a Colt AR-15 during the ban, you bought it illegally.

You might as well stop posting after the statement. It shows your clearly are missing the fundamental knowledge of purchasing firearms, or firearms in general, to speak intelligently on the subject.
 
You equate "citizens" with highly reponsible [sic] national leaders ??

To see what uses our “highly reponsible [sic] national leaders” have made of the power and tax money that they have been allowed to seize, and how little accounting they offer thereof to the citizens of this nation who they are supposed to serve, I have to take issue with your use of the term “highly reponsible [sic]” in connection with them. If anything, the average citizen, who must make careful use of his own limited income and resources, and who is not empowered to seize as much as he wants from the populace in the form of taxes, is, of necessity, far more responsible than our national leaders.
 
Poppycock! All we have to do is look to other wealthy nations with gun control to see that it works.

So you are saying that you can copy and paste the same rules from other nations and it will work perfectly? It doesn't matter that we have a significantly higher population, land mass, inner city poverty ratings, and simple numbers of firearms?

I didn't know that was how it worked. So why does democracy not work in the Middle East?
 
So you are saying that you can copy and paste the same rules from other nations and it will work perfectly? It doesn't matter that we have a significantly higher population, land mass, inner city poverty ratings, and simple numbers of firearms?
Don't forget demographics, especially in high-crime areas, like our cities.
 
If you bought a Colt AR-15 during the ban, you bought it illegally.

Not true, as the AWB listed combinations of features, meaning that the same basic weapon could be sold with no more than one of the "bad" (banned) features, but still was OK with any one feature on the "bad" list. Simply removing the flash suppressor (and threaded barrel end) and bayonette attachment lug made the initial AR-15 into the "AB"-15. ;)

Edit: Another possibility was to (re)buy a "banned" AR-15 but one that was made and sold (new) prior to the AWB effective start date.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom