• 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!

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 78.0%
  • No

    Votes: 13 22.0%

  • Total voters
    59
They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.

With a crossbow? Yes, defending yourself against group of armed men is entirely realistic with a crossbow. :roll:
 
Call it whatever you want...

I call it what it is.


but the Left is using the exact same logic of altering the Constitution to deprive us of our gun rights.

No they aren't. The logic I am employing cannot be used to alter the constitution to deprive anyone of their gun rights. The logic I am using requires people to make the choice to relinquish their rights.
 
With a crossbow? Yes, defending yourself against group of armed men is entirely realistic with a crossbow. :roll:

It's not much less realistic than using a gun to defend yourself against a group of armed men.
 
I assure you, I am not using any equivalence premise, despite your delusional claims otherwise.

1. A crossbow DOES NOT SUFFICE for home or carry defense. This is not Dungeons and Dragons world, this is modern America.
2. A felon can't have a crossbow. I'm pretty sure that's where your argument was going, for equivalence support, even if you don't realize that.
 
Eco, you'll also note that I am not simply talking about felons (a general term). If you aren't rebutting my argument, you are simply engaging in mental masturbation.
 
1. A crossbow DOES NOT SUFFICE for home or carry defense.

Yes it does suffice, but it is not an equivalence. I did not, at any time, imply or state that it was equal in any way to a firearm for those purposes, only that it would achieve those purposes.


This is not Dungeons and Dragons world, this is modern America.

Utterly irrelevant. Crossbows will protect one's person and home. Not as well as a firearm, but far better than nothing or a non-projectile weapon would.

2. A felon can't have a crossbow, currently.

Also irrelevant. I'm not talking about what is, only about what I think should be the case.
 
Eco, you'll also note that I am not simply talking about felons (a general term). If you aren't rebutting my argument, you are simply engaging in mental masturbation.

I support concealed gun rights for some gun criminals.

I do not equivocate crossbows and firearms, for whatever purpose. The result (and, when conscious, purpose) of doing such is, obviously, anti-gun rights.
 
I support concealed gun rights for some gun criminals.

I would, too, depending on the specific crime. As other have noted, crimes like poaching shouldn't be treated like armed robbery or armed rape. (edited to add: and if some mother ****er committed those latter two crimes with a cross bow he should be banned from owning a crossbow ever again)

I do not equivocate crossbows and firearms, for whatever purpose.

There is no equivocation. One doe snot need to make an equivalence in order to acknowledge reality that they both work as defensive weapons. Your argument seeks to ignore reality by falsely claiming that an equivalency was made when one was not made.

The result (and, when conscious, purpose) of doing such is, obviously, anti-gun rights.

The only problem is that your claims of equivalency are imaginary ones.
 
There is no equivocation. One doe snot need to make an equivalence in order to acknowledge reality that they both work as defensive weapons. Your argument seeks to ignore reality by falsely claiming that an equivalency was made when one was not made.

We're talking about crossbows? You really think they are sufficient for home defense? I think you've been watching too much Home Alone.

Can you imagine the results of accepting "both work as defensive weapons" as the premise for the 2nd? C'mon, this is ridiculous. You've dropped context, including the modern world, felon law and, for all intents and purposes, reality. And you claim my position is delusional? Do you live at a Disney studio?
 
We're talking about crossbows? You really think they are sufficient for home defense?

Considering the rarity of such a need coupled with the typical home protection situation and the efficacy of the weapon, absolutely, yes. If it's sufficient for taking down a full grown deer, it'll take down an intruder.

I think you've been watching too much Home Alone.

I think you underestimate the efficacy of the crossbow.
 
Utterly irrelevant. Crossbows will protect one's person and home. Not as well as a firearm, but far better than nothing or a non-projectile weapon would.

A crossbow is not meant for this kind of combat against the weapons it will face. Honestly, how can you even make that argument with a straight face.
 
Considering the rarity of such a need coupled with the typical home protection situation and the efficacy of the weapon, absolutely, yes. If it's sufficient for taking down a full grown deer, it'll take down an intruder.



I think you underestimate the efficacy of the crossbow.

See edit.

And spare me your crossbow e-peenism.
 
Look, I got news for you, Tucker. My ninja sword would defeat your crossbow.
 
Can you imagine the results of accepting "both work as defensive weapons" as the premise for the 2nd?

Why would I imagine that? I'm not making an equivalence argument (despite your incessant refusal to acknowledge that fact).
 
Why would I imagine that? I'm not making an equivalence argument (despite your incessant refusal to acknowledge that fact).

A long sitck works fine for home defense. Straightline shot property defense is what it was designed for.
 
Yes, as in if there is a group of armed men and you are on your own, you're probably ****ed regardless.

No ****, but you made the ridiculous argument that my chances are only slightly more with something like a semi automatic rifle vs a goddamn crossbow. Yeah, that AR-15 is just slightly better than my crossbow. That is just laughably stupid.
 
We're talking about crossbows? You really think they are sufficient for home defense? I think you've been watching too much Home Alone.

LOL. Agreed a crossbow doesn't make a very good home defense weapon. A short sword would be better than a crossbow, but my first choice would be a 12 ga. pump.
 
I accept your concession.

I think you understimate the efficacy of a ninja sword. ****, I bet I could take your crossbow with a pocket knife. DON'T underestimate the efficacy a pocket knife.
 
Look, I got news for you, Tucker. My ninja sword would defeat your crossbow.

A Katana would be better than a crossbow too, but would take a bit more skill to wield in a closed space such as a home.
 
A Katana would be better than a crossbow too, but would take a bit more skill to wield in a closed space such as a home.

An African or a European crossbow?
 
Back
Top Bottom