• 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!

Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save lives?

Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 91.3%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • IDK/Other

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Total voters
    23
J

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.

So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

joko104 said:
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.

So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Click to expand...

What are you basing this assertion on? Crime has been going down for over a decade, gun laws got more lax in 2004, yet crime is still going down.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Potential? Maybe.
Proven. Yes then
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Are we proposing a gun (at least one !) for every citizen in order to cut crime.
Interesting.
According to Fox New's "governor" Huckabee, this is the way things SHOULD be...
Unlimited ownership
No regulations
Or, England does this and that and we do the opposite..
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

joko104 said:
Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save lives?
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, the burden always belongs on an advocate of less freedom to prove that the reduced freedom is necessary and justified to achieve some purpose, such as increased safety.

Less restrictions on guns should not require evidence that the result would be improved safety, or any other benefit; only that the result would not be to make things very much worse.

And evidence is clearly on that side. As you observed…

joko104 said:
In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.
Click to expand...

Gun control laws are harming us, and providing no benefit in return. Absolutely, we need to reduce or eliminate these restrictions, and not increase them.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

joko104 said:
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.

So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Click to expand...
What federal restrictions are there on guns besides dealers needing a license, and background checks to weed out prohibited persons? And you think thats too many?
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if that was expected to save lives?

notice the question was revised to anticipate positive change rather than a hope for positive change

and with that revision my answer would be 'yes'
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

joko104 said:
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.

So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Click to expand...

I support less restrictions on guns regardless.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

joko104 said:
I'm tired of threads and messages that assert gun control will save lives. In this country the government has increasingly added restrictions on firearms, and crime goes up, not down - thus making the assertion that gun control allows and causes more crimes. Gun control is what allows almost all mass shootings.

So it is time to ask the question from the more realictic potential.
Click to expand...

You realize correlation does not equal causation? SInce your initial premise is retarded, your conclusion is failed.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Hell I'd support MORE restrictions if it'd save lives, but empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

earthworm said:
Are we proposing a gun (at least one !) for every citizen in order to cut crime.
Interesting.
According to Fox New's "governor" Huckabee, this is the way things SHOULD be...
Unlimited ownership
No regulations
Or, England does this and that and we do the opposite..
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to England? Citizens are treated like cattle, piss on that
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Gipper said:
Hell I'd support MORE restrictions if it'd save lives, but empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
Click to expand...

That's my opinion as well. I'm not really ideologically opposed to gun restrictions, as much as I just believe they generally don't work.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Anagram said:
That's my opinion as well. I'm not really ideologically opposed to gun restrictions, as much as I just believe they generally don't work.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what they said about restrictions on drunk driving?
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Moot said:
Isn't that what they said about restrictions on drunk driving?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure those are comparable situations.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

I don't take safety into consideration when it comes to freedom.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Rocketman said:
Have you ever been to England? Citizens Subjects are treated like cattle, piss on that
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. There is an important distinction between citizens and subjects. England has subjects. Here in America, we are suppose to be citizens; though far too many of us have been too complacent in allowing our public servants to treat us as subjects.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Anagram said:
I'm not sure those are comparable situations.
Click to expand...
People didn't think that drunk driving could be reduced with restrictions and penalties, but it did, significantly.

Getting a drivers license, registering the car, taking periodical road safety tests, penalties for road violations are some similiarites that could be applied to guns. For getting caught drunk driving, a person could lose their drivers license, pay hefty fines, go to jail, get a police record, forced to go AA and even sued if they injure or kill someone. All that has helped to reduce drinking and driving. A campaign emphasing gun safety and taking the glamor out owning guns would go along way to hindering the gun culture that seems to permeating society.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Moot said:
People didn't think that drunk driving could be reduced with restrictions and penalties, but it did, significantly.

Getting a drivers license, registering the car, taking periodical road safety tests, penalties for road violations are some similiarites that could be applied to guns. For getting caught drunk driving, a person could lose their drivers license, pay hefty fines, go to jail, get a police record, forced to go AA and even sued if they injure or kill someone. All that has helped to reduce drinking and driving. A campaign emphasing gun safety and taking the glamor out owning guns would go along way to hindering the gun culture that seems to permeating society.
Click to expand...

ya mean they didn't restrict cars or alcohol, but instead imposed stiffer fines for bad behavior... and it worked?

imagine that.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Thrilla said:
ya mean they didn't restrict cars or alcohol, but instead imposed stiffer fines for bad behavior... and it worked?

imagine that.
Click to expand...
Well, by taking away a drivers license had the effect of restricting cars. And breath analyzers if you got pulled over had the effect of restricting the number of drinks one might have before driving.

So yeah, imagine that.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Moot said:
A campaign emphasing gun safety and taking the glamor out owning guns would go along way to hindering the gun culture that seems to permeating society.
Click to expand...

See, this crap is annoying. These anti-gun nuts think that firearm proliferation is going to cause the wild wild west to come alive, where people can openly brandish, wave their pieces in the air, even shoot around like Yosemite Sam. If you opened the gun flood doors, America would turn into Pulp Fiction.

You seriously have to question the mentality of people who think this, and wonder if they even know one responsible gun owner that may negate all the liberal sensationalism.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Gipper said:
Hell I'd support MORE restrictions if it'd save lives, but empirical evidence suggests the opposite.
Click to expand...
And therin lies the issue. Both parties have stuck to a set of talking points for so long that despite the presence of data that opposes their points, they stick to them in some sort of demented show of faith to what they think their constituents want. The ones that come to mind first are gay marriage for the GOP and tighter gun laws for Dems.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

MarineTpartier said:
And therin lies the issue. Both parties have stuck to a set of talking points for so long that despite the presence of data that opposes their points, they stick to them in some sort of demented show of faith to what they think their constituents want. The ones that come to mind first are gay marriage for the GOP and tighter gun laws for Dems.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, libertarians don't have constituents. I'm for common sense, personal freedom, and results. Therefore, it's easy to see which side of the gun aisle I choose.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Gipper said:
Fortunately, libertarians don't have constituents. I'm for common sense, personal freedom, and results. Therefore, it's easy to see which side of the gun aisle I choose.
Click to expand...
If all of you guys weren't atheists I'd probably join you:2razz:
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

MarineTpartier said:
If all of you guys weren't atheists I'd probably join you:2razz:
Click to expand...

Not a requirement. I'm Christian/spiritual, but I'm definitely not religious. I've openly said that religion is the cause for most of the world's wars throughout history.
 
Re: Would you support LESS restrictions on guns if this had the potential to save liv

Gipper said:
Not a requirement. I'm Christian/spiritual, but I'm definitely not religious. I've openly said that religion is the cause for most of the world's wars throughout history.
Click to expand...
I agree it's not a requirement. It's a perception. I don't want to be perceived as an atheist nor would I want to vote for a candidate that was one. Also, abortion is a little sketchy with some libertarians IMO. That's just me though.
I wouldn't say religion caused them. I'd say egomaniacal and inevitably flawed human beings cause it with religion as their excuse. There have been many other excuses to go to war ie WWI, WWII, Korea, etc, etc. Religion had nothing to do with any of those wars. It was power, selfishness, money, ideoligies, etc in those cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom