• 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
RabidAlpaca said:
I can reload an M4 in about 2 seconds flat, so I'm not sure how that could be true.
Click to expand...
That's 26 rounds.

And here I thought the issue was limited to the Constitution, I didn't realize it extended to math as well.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Prove you are correct, link to your calling for increased spending on education, for instance.
Click to expand...

I've done so repeatedly. Education is my schtick.


Oh, well....you have somehow found my "plan"....and refuted it. Can you link to either?



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.
Click to expand...

Counter? Counter what, your assumptions?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
That's 26 rounds.

And here I thought the issue was limited to the Constitution, I didn't realize it extended to math as well.
Click to expand...

An M4 mag holds 30, but most professional shooters will load 28 to avoid jamming. Might want to check your info there, haas.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
An M4 mag holds 30, but most professional shooters will load 28 to avoid jamming. Might want to check your info there, haas.
Click to expand...
Uh..."haas"....the point was rate of fire.

Man, you guys...
 
mac said:
I've done so repeatedly. Education is my schtick.
Click to expand...
Well then that makes it even easier....but then you failed.....to provide a link.




Counter? Counter what, your assumptions?
Click to expand...
Oh, that's right....you keep playing the "I'm not saying I have a right to military weaponry" dance.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The rate of fire of an M4 is 700-950 rounds per minute cyclic. So I'm not sure why you shat out the number 26.
Click to expand...
Um, I was discussing the AR-15.

If you want to go your way, it gets worse for your argument.

I swear....keep on swinging....you will hit something eventually....I suppose.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Tucson: the thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was having to reload around unarmed citizens."
Daily Kos: Tucson: the thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was having to reload around unarmed citizens

"The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.

A lot can happen in the window of time it takes to reload, Johnson said.

"Folks that are being attacked have time to react, to close that distance in," he said. "I think any football player in America would like to have four-and-a-half seconds to get to the quarterback without any of the offensive players."

An expert shooter like a police officer can switch magazines in less than two seconds. But for a nervous, scared adolescent, it would take much longer, Johnson said, which can be crucial."

Baltimore Police Chief Wants to Ban High-Capacity Firepower - ABC News
 
iacardsfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

no based on that alone i absolutely would not for one simply reason, the wording of you question, i know many that COULD, POTENTIALLY save lives and at the same time it COULD, POTENTIAL destroy lives

Id support restrictions that could be proven to only have positives if it didnt also endanger law abiding citizens too.


there have been very few, if any suggestions that also dont risk life also
 
mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like Justice Scalia, I have no wish to prohibit all firearms. As the Justice put it:
""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.'
 
Catawba said:
"Tucson: the thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was having to reload around unarmed citizens."
Daily Kos: Tucson: the thing that stopped a bad guy with a gun was having to reload around unarmed citizens

"The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.

A lot can happen in the window of time it takes to reload, Johnson said.

"Folks that are being attacked have time to react, to close that distance in," he said. "I think any football player in America would like to have four-and-a-half seconds to get to the quarterback without any of the offensive players."

An expert shooter like a police officer can switch magazines in less than two seconds. But for a nervous, scared adolescent, it would take much longer, Johnson said, which can be crucial."

Baltimore Police Chief Wants to Ban High-Capacity Firepower - ABC News
Click to expand...

I can see the benefits, but I'm skeptical to the execution of it. I'm also not sure how this would've stopped the Newton shooting.

Gimmesometruth said:
Um, I was discussing the AR-15.

If you want to go your way, it gets worse for your argument.

I swear....keep on swinging....you will hit something eventually....I suppose.
Click to expand...
You're the one who came out of left field with the 26 rounds thing when I was talking to someone else about an m4. Your bad I guess.

BTW, here are some 30 round AR-15 magazines:
http://www.brownells.com/magazines/...r-15-m16-20-30-round-magazines-prod21225.aspx
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're the one who came out of left field with the 26 rounds thing when I was talking to someone else about an m4. Your bad I guess.
Click to expand...
LOL...I thought this was what you might say, something to the effect of not understanding the point and the math.
You did not let me down.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I can see the benefits, but I'm skeptical to the execution of it. I'm also not sure how this would've stopped the Newton shooting.
Click to expand...

As the Baltimore Police Chief noted:

"As we've seen in America today, there have been several attacks where that reload is vital," Johnson said. "Tragically, in the shooting of a congresswoman, the reload was instrumental.

"We've also seen this in Baltimore County, in a school shooting that we had, where the reload became very instrumental in allowing the teacher to actually tackle a student that was trying to reload a double-barreled shotgun," he said.

Last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., police believe Adam Lanza was armed with high-capacity magazines. He fired at least 30 times before having to stop to reload.

Johnson said there is no reason that the general public should have access to high-capacity magazines."
Baltimore Police Chief Wants to Ban High-Capacity Firepower - ABC News
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Well then that makes it even easier....but then you failed.....to provide a link.
Click to expand...

I don't have any intention of searching through posts where I talk about it. That's doesn't make your "right wing" claim about me valid.

Oh, that's right....you keep playing the "I'm not saying I have a right to military weaponry" dance.
Click to expand...

I'm not. I fully agree that no-one should have hand-grenades, RPGs or tactical nukes in their homes.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I've never heard of 26 round magazines.
Click to expand...
LOL....I was not talking about "26 round" magazines. As I said, you lost track of the point and the math.

But go on...

Not quite sure where math comes in either.
Click to expand...
I know, you have made that abundantly clear.

Review...the argument made was "higher capacity magazines allow for getting numbers of dead"

you said "I don't see how, can change a mag in 2 secs"

and I said "that would be 26 rounds" (rate of fire/AR-15 in 2 secs)

You somehow can't put together the concept that a high capacity mag would allow a shooter to get off at least 26 more rounds without the mag swap.

Is it sinking in yet?
 
Catawba said:
Like Justice Scalia, I have no wish to prohibit all firearms. As the Justice put it:
""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.'
Click to expand...

and also like he said, that applies in certain places and certain times.
 
mac said:
I don't have any intention of searching through posts where I talk about it. That's doesn't make your "right wing" claim about me valid.
Click to expand...
It certainly makes your claim to supporting it less valid.



I'm not. I fully agree that no-one should have hand-grenades, RPGs or tactical nukes in their homes.
Click to expand...
But of course, the "line" under discussion is fully auto rifles...if you hadn't noticed.

Can you get anymore oblique?
I bet you can, in fact I have personally seen it.
 
Catawba said:
Okie dokie! :cool:
Click to expand...

IF you'd really like Scalia's take, here's a good example:

"Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest-balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, Justice Breyer arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
 
mac said:
I never said you do.
Click to expand...
Ah, still dancing! Are we talking nukes? No, we aren't.

Is this it? Is the the limit on moving the discussion forward? Just gonna drag it out as long as possible..huh?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It certainly makes your claim to supporting it less valid.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

But of course, the "line" under discussion is fully auto rifles...if you hadn't noticed.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing for possesion of full-auto firearms.

Can you get anymore oblique?
I bet you can, in fact I have personally seen it.
Click to expand...

Nice personal attack. Got anything of substance?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
LOL....I was not talking about "26 round" magazines. As I said, you lost track of the point and the math.

But go on...

I know, you have made that abundantly clear.

Review...the argument made was "higher capacity magazines allow for getting numbers of dead"

you said "I don't see how, can change a mag in 2 secs"

and I said "that would be 26 rounds" (rate of fire/AR-15 in 2 secs)

You somehow can't put together the concept that a high capacity mag would allow a shooter to get off at least 26 more rounds without the mag swap.

Is it sinking in yet?
Click to expand...
The rate of fire for an AR-15 is only in the 700-800 rpm range when it is fully automatic, which is already illegal in the US. The semi automatic version depends on how fast your trigger finger is. You fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom