• 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
What does the other crimes mention have to do with anything? Well, this a gun control thread relating to all gun violence, not just Mass shootings.

You folks on the other end of the spectrum would do well to make up your mind about this. Here you claim you want to make this about all gun violence. And thus any solution must curb all gun violence or its not passing your muster. However, right on this debate site are at least two threads started by gun advocates -one by Goshin and one by Lee White - in which they law down the restriction that they do NOT want to hear about any law which will expressly NOT prevent Connecticut atrocities. Its not enough to come up with a suggestion that will do some good. They want it to make sure it prevents future atrocities just like this one or else they do not want to entertain it and will mock anything else that is brought up.

So which is it?

Which way does the right want it?

Or do you want it both ways and it depends on which argument allows you to win that particular point at that particular point in time?

You also seem to be advocating for adopting a foreign law that you admit to not knowing the details of.
I am NOT advocating that we copy this foreign law. I simply pointed out that another nation similar to ours adopted a law for a specific goal and it achieved that goal.


You equate some towns restrictions with nation wide restriction/laws. You say it is not a curtailment on the right to own guns, but it clearly is taking away the right to purchase many different guns.

The Constitution never guarantees the right of a citizen to purchase and bear any gun of their choice. To pretend that it does is false and a lie.

You also don't seem to understand what they Clinton era "ban" really said. Not all "assault weapons" were baned from new sales, the ban only affected new sales, not the transfer or sale of pre-existing arms or magazines.

Yes. I understand that.


Was the ban ever constitutionally challenged in the Supreme Court?

I find no reversal of it by the Supreme Court. And it was on the books for a full decade allowing for plenty of challenges if anyone saw fit or had reasonable grounds to do so. There might be an excellent reason why no challenge ever reached the court.


What reducing affect do you think a new ban would have on pre-existing guns and magazines?

None.Sorry that is wrong. It makes them more valuable and the price will go up.

You also seem to equate "assault weapons" with mass shootings. Tell me, what "assault weapon" was used in Tucson? What firearms were used at columbine and did they get them through legal means? Were "assault weapons" the only ones used during any of the mass shootings?

I am NOT equating anything. I am relating what happened in Australia and what they did and the results they achieved.
 
We also had the highest rates of gun ownership. We also had an extremely low murder rate (probably other violent crimes).
We have nearly the highest homicide rate of the major industrial states, 4 times higher than Western Europe.
 
Again there was no significant challenge to the ban because there was no significant limitation applied by it.

That is because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge in the USSC. They let the lower courts ruling against the challenge stand.
 
Exactly...which means that the real way to reduce crime is to improve education and reduce poverty rather than attacking inanimate objects.
And you and your ilk will be the first voice to reduce govt programs for education and reducing poverty.

What else you got?
 
The weapons the police use are selected for the very same reason that they are perfectly applicable to home/self defense. So, we disagree.

If you are suggesting that the public be required to take the same mental evaluations and background checks that police do, I would have no problem with the public also having high capacity magazines.
 
If you are suggesting that the public be required to take the same mental evaluations and background checks that police do, I would have no problem with the public also having high capacity magazines.

Well good for you. Now maybe you should understand that they take those evaluations and background checks due to the high stress environment they work in, not for the weapons they carry.
 
And you and your ilk will be the first voice to reduce govt programs for education and reducing poverty.

You would be wrong, of course. But regardless of the alleged lack of support for those programs, your plan of banning firearms won't work.

What else you got?

Tell me when you have something, first....
 
That is because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge in the USSC. They let the lower courts ruling against the challenge stand.

Uhm, no. There was no challenge for the reason I already stated.
 
Well good for you. Now maybe you should understand that they take those evaluations and background checks due to the high stress environment they work in, not for the weapons they carry.
And that for the state to deny you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines you are not breaking the law in doing so is a form of prior restraint - which violates the Constitution.
 
You folks on the other end of the spectrum would do well to make up your mind about this. Here you claim you want to make this about all gun violence. And thus any solution must curb all gun violence or its not passing your muster. However, right on this debate site are at least two threads started by gun advocates -one by Goshin and one by Lee White - in which they law down the restriction that they do NOT want to hear about any law which will expressly NOT prevent Connecticut atrocities. Its not enough to come up with a suggestion that will do some good. They want it to make sure it prevents future atrocities just like this one or else they do not want to entertain it and will mock anything else that is brought up.

So which is it?

Which way does the right want it?

Or do you want it both ways and it depends on which argument allows you to win that particular point at that particular point in time?

You also seem to be advocating for adopting a foreign law that you admit to not knowing the details of.
I am NOT advocating that we copy this foreign law. I simply pointed out that another nation similar to ours adopted a law for a specific goal and it achieved that goal.




The Constitution never guarantees the right of a citizen to purchase and bear any gun of their choice. To pretend that it does is false and a lie.



Yes. I understand that.




I find no reversal of it by the Supreme Court. And it was on the books for a full decade allowing for plenty of challenges if anyone saw fit or had reasonable grounds to do so. There might be an excellent reason why no challenge ever reached the court.




None.Sorry that is wrong. It makes them more valuable and the price will go up.



I am NOT equating anything. I am relating what happened in Australia and what they did and the results they achieved.

I don't know which way the "right" wants it, I'm not on the "right", so ask them, not me.

I want solutions that have proven to actually do "good" in America. Foreign countries have never had the same laws that we have. Yes, the ban might of worked in Australia, but it doesn't take into account what laws already existed there, such as hand gun laws. Nor does it prove that such a law would work in the US.

There is no doubt that taking all guns away would result in lower crime rates being committed with guns, however, that is an impossibility in America. The only proven way to reduce violent crime in America, including mass shootings, is to arm more people and give them unfettered self defense and defense of others.
 
And that for the state to deny you the exercise of your right until such a time that the state determines you are not breaking the law in doing so is a form of prior restraint - which violates the Constitution.

Absolutely!
 
We have nearly the highest homicide rate of the major industrial states, 4 times higher than Western Europe.

I don't get what relationship you are trying to argue here. My comment that you quoted was conditions pre 1903. They have what to do with today. Did Western Europe have lower rates then? Would we have lower rates now if we brought back laws that existed prior to 1903. I believe we would, because history shows, conclusively, that higher gun ownership rates and broader carry and defense laws allow result in the lowest murder rates ever experienced in this country.
 
You would be wrong, of course.
Prove you are correct, link to your calling for increased spending on education, for instance.


But regardless of the alleged lack of support for those programs, your plan of banning firearms won't work.
Oh, well....you have somehow found my "plan"....and refuted it. Can you link to either?



Tell me when you have something, first....
First? good golly, molly..."first" has come and gone, I'm still waiting for anything countering what has already been written....not what you continue to imagine.....but what has actually been posted.
 
Uhm, no. There was no challenge for the reason I already stated.

There was no challenge to the federal law because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge.

As noted by Conservative Justice Scalia:

"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate

Further:

:The U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment yesterday to hear a challenge to New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, letting stand a law seen by many as the toughest of its kind in the country.

Assault-weapons ban withstands court challenge The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments against the strict N.J. law. Some issues, though, still can be raised. N.J.'s strict assault-weapons law to stand - Philly.com
 
You can deny all history as far as I am concerned, you never posted any chronology or fact refuting what I posted.

.


Because I don't honestly need to refute you. The topic is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Before the NRA had it's schism and became the radicalized entity it now is, there were so fewer of you who believe in their extremist philosophy of arming every US man, women and child. It used to be an organization focused on hunting, not creating members who feel they should be purchasing semi/full auto large clip military weapons. These are not hunting or marksmanship tools, they are designed to kill humans at a fast rate, that is what they were designed to do. They are not for personal protection as one can argue a revolver is, they were created for shock troops. And the argument that "we need to defend against a tyrannical govt" is just hogwash, US military weaponry far exceeds what you have, and you just are sliding down the slope if you argue you need to match them.

This is all radicalist garbage. Want you know how I know?

There is no seriousness in your argument, this is just a bunch of white guys with inadequacies filling a void.

You are not threatened, you are the threat

That ridiculoust statement right there. Do you have a problem with white people? You know that the NRA isn't a racist organization right? There are no links beyond that thing you saw in the Michael Moore cartoon. Way to go on that.

CLEARLY you have no concept of firearms and are quoting EXACTLY what the media says, and EXACTLY what your party line says. How do I know this?

who feel they should be purchasing semi/full auto large clip military weapons

They aren't targeting "military weapons" only. They are targeting semi automatic weapons in general. That would be Ruger, Mossberg, Savage, Remington, and basically ANYONE else who makes a .22 that can hold more than 10 rounds. Yes that is JUST the .22 caliber. Anyone else who makes a semi-automatic rifle that has a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds WILL come under attack as well. You say it is for "killing people" and that is incredibily naive. The shooter determines the purpose of the weapon. The idiotic statement that "the gun is for killing people" is so clearly undereducated that I actually laughed when I read it. You do know that the BULLET has more bearing on the purpose of a firearm than the gun itself? If I load it up with cheap FMJ rounds what do you think I am doing? Shooting people? No I am targeting...paper targets. I use hollow points or buckshot if I am loading for self defense. You can make a case for ammunition, but every man or woman on this forum who has regular trigger time knows that bullets make a bigger difference than the rifle itself. Not to mention I have NEVER seen these ARs fire without human interaction. That means that these rifles coming under the threat of banishment...still need to be aimed. Who does that? The rifle doesn't have an autoaim like your video game. It has to be pointed. That means that the entire solution to the problem you are FREAKING OUT over is NOT in the object. It is in the person pointing it.

All that said. This "ban" on military rifles is stupid. Why? Because it will do nothing more than cosmeticly attack. Do you know why your view and the view of people like Catwaba or Capster is a joke? Because THIS:

fe027d94ce4a.jpg

is considered "deadlier" than this:

cz_550_amer.jpg

In a competition of ability...I take the 2nd and you take the first...do you realize that you could only win in sheer volume of wasted ammo with the first rifle? I bet you still think the first is more lethal don't you?

this is just a bunch of white guys with inadequacies filling a void.

Who told you that? That is HILARIOUS!!! Considering the fact that I am in the best shape of my life, have a wonderful sex life, and I am on track for a very bright future? Lol.

You are not threatened

I know. My 870 and 9mm says so.

you are the threat.

Actually between you and me...I am the least likely to committ a violent act. That is of course because I don't see firearms as ONLY for murder. I would be afraid of what you would do if you owned a firearm. You don't properly understand their usage. Maybe we should just ban you? After all I am looking to become an instructor, and I have a safety record like you wouldn't believe.
 
That is because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge in the USSC. They let the lower courts ruling against the challenge stand.

You are still avoiding what I asked you earlier. I am wondering why?

What makes this:

Display__84353.1328577066.1280.1280.jpg

deadlier than this:

501px-PostbanAR15A2standard.jpg
 
I don't get what relationship you are trying to argue here. My comment that you quoted was conditions pre 1903. They have what to do with today. Did Western Europe have lower rates then? Would we have lower rates now if we brought back laws that existed prior to 1903. I believe we would, because history shows, conclusively, that higher gun ownership rates and broader carry and defense laws allow result in the lowest murder rates ever experienced in this country.
actually, you are completely wrong, the number of guns per capita is on the decline in the US and homicide rates have declined from the "crack" days of the '90's. There are MANY studies also showing that as gun ownership declines so does the homicide rate.
 
actually, you are completely wrong, the number of guns per capita is on the decline in the US and homicide rates have declined from the "crack" days of the '90's. There are MANY studies also showing that as gun ownership declines so does the homicide rate.

Correlation does not imply causality.
 
View attachment 67139800

is considered "deadlier" than this:

View attachment 67139801

In a competition of ability...I take the 2nd and you take the first...do you realize that you could only win in sheer volume of wasted ammo with the first rifle? I bet you still think the first is more lethal don't you?
I would take the first in any of the following situations:
1. there were grenades for the launcher
2. it was close quarters combat
3. we're fighting at night (it seems to be a night vision scope)
4. there were less than 400 meters between us.

Otherwise I'd take the second. The second is slow but very accurate long range. So it's very situation dependent.

The high capacity magazine allows higher death counts by the shooter.

I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.
 
Because I don't honestly need to refute you. The topic is irrelevant and a waste of time.
It is a waste of YOUR time since you don't know the history of the gun...as I showed in multiple posts.



This is all radicalist garbage. Want you know how I know?
Apparently you can't express it, no one is stopping you.



That ridiculoust statement right there. Do you have a problem with white people? You know that the NRA isn't a racist organization right? There are no links beyond that thing you saw in the Michael Moore cartoon. Way to go on that.
Nuts, what "cartoon" do you think I viewed....and take note, that was a separate paragraph...but then again, the NRA more than likely has a large number of racists in it's midst...but that is such a tangent from the point, you avoided the point, the point was that you and your ilk have no legit need for military weaponry.

CLEARLY you have no concept of firearms and are quoting EXACTLY what the media says, and EXACTLY what your party line says. How do I know this?
You don't know anything about me, I am a gun owner, I grew up in AZ, have done the whole dove hunting/target practice/blowing things up in the desert bs....when I was a kid.



They aren't targeting "military weapons" only. They are targeting semi automatic weapons in general. That would be Ruger, Mossberg, Savage, Remington, and basically ANYONE else who makes a .22 that can hold more than 10 rounds. Yes that is JUST the .22 caliber. Anyone else who makes a semi-automatic rifle that has a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds WILL come under attack as well. You say it is for "killing people" and that is incredibily naive. The shooter determines the purpose of the weapon. The idiotic statement that "the gun is for killing people" is so clearly undereducated that I actually laughed when I read it. You do know that the BULLET has more bearing on the purpose of a firearm than the gun itself? If I load it up with cheap FMJ rounds what do you think I am doing? Shooting people? No I am targeting...paper targets. I use hollow points or buckshot if I am loading for self defense. You can make a case for ammunition, but every man or woman on this forum who has regular trigger time knows that bullets make a bigger difference than the rifle itself. Not to mention I have NEVER seen these ARs fire without human interaction. That means that these rifles coming under the threat of banishment...still need to be aimed. Who does that? The rifle doesn't have an autoaim like your video game. It has to be pointed. That means that the entire solution to the problem you are FREAKING OUT over is NOT in the object. It is in the person pointing it.
You lost track, the topic is THE GUN, in this case the AR-15. It was designed to be an assault/mainline military weapon from the start. It isn't about the single bullet, it is about the fact that these are military weapons designed to fire at high rates.....to KILL PEOPLE. Not for hunting, or target shooting.......killing people.

All that said. This "ban" on military rifles is stupid. Why? Because it will do nothing more than cosmeticly attack. Do you know why your view and the view of people like Catwaba or Capster is a joke? Because THIS:



is considered "deadlier" than this:


In a competition of ability...I take the 2nd and you take the first...do you realize that you could only win in sheer volume of wasted ammo with the first rifle? I bet you still think the first is more lethal don't you?



Who told you that? That is HILARIOUS!!! Considering the fact that I am in the best shape of my life, have a wonderful sex life, and I am on track for a very bright future? Lol.



I know. My 870 and 9mm says so.
You know, again, you lost the argument again, because you think that a bolt action has the ability to fire at a greater rate than the AR-15, it can't.

You are not fooling me


Actually between you and me...I am the least likely to committ a violent act. That is of course because I don't see firearms as ONLY for murder. I would be afraid of what you would do if you owned a firearm. You don't properly understand their usage. Maybe we should just ban you? After all I am looking to become an instructor, and I have a safety record like you wouldn't believe.
Talk is cheap, and as I have already shown on multiple points....you don't know what you claim to be expert about.
 
I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.

How did that work out for the shooters that were tackled when they stopped shooting to reload.
 
How did that work out for the shooters that were tackled when they stopped shooting to reload.

How many unarmed children does it take to tackle a shooter?

If you can rush a shooter and have him on the ground in under 2 seconds, hats off to you bro.
 
There was no challenge to the federal law because there is no Constitutional basis for a challenge.

As noted by Conservative Justice Scalia:

"Machine guns have been banned in this country for decades. Even as it found an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court made the following observation: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," that it is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever" and noted "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' " That opinion wasn't written by some wild-eyed liberal - it was written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia."

Read more: Feinstein presses for assault weapons ban - SFGate

You, of course, are taking it out of context....it goes on to say:

"nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

He's talking about specific restrictions under specific circumstances. Not a general application.

Further:

:The U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment yesterday to hear a challenge to New Jersey's ban on semiautomatic assault weapons, letting stand a law seen by many as the toughest of its kind in the country.

Assault-weapons ban withstands court challenge The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear arguments against the strict N.J. law. Some issues, though, still can be raised. N.J.'s strict assault-weapons law to stand - Philly.com

Uhm, so?
 
Back
Top Bottom