• 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 be okay with the two proposals?


  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Would you be okay with a gun control proposal that had the following:

1) Straw Buyers suffer the same punishment as the person they bought the firearm for
2) Current Background checks updated to include psych and medical histories to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.
 
Prosecute those who violate the liberties of others. Criminals will get guns if they want, regardless of the law. Make a law, they will just find another way.

Gun control is hitting your target.
 
1) Straw Buyers suffer the same punishment as the person they bought the firearm for

This part I'm fine with, as long as it can be proven that they bought it knowing the person wasn't allowed to own a gun. Although I wonder if that's already illegal. Owning a gun when you aren't allowed to is a crime, buying one for someone should be conspiracy shouldn't it?

2) Current Background checks updated to include psych and medical histories to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

Probably not this part. There are a lot of problems with it. It's hard to predict whether someone, even a person with severe psychological issues, is dangerous. And just because someone was deemed dangerous in the past, doesn't mean they still are. I think in a lot of cases this could actually make people less likely to seek psychological treatment because of fear they would lose their guns. My wife is a good example. She suffers from clinical depression and owns (and enjoys shooting) a couple of guns. She isn't suicidal, though she was years ago, and she sees a psychiatrist to help her cope with her depression. The counseling has helped a lot over the last couple years. She would have been a lot less likely to seek that help (and I would have been less likely to encourage her to do so) if we thought it might mean we couldn't own guns anymore, because it wasn't severely impacting her daily life. She had a few rough days here and there, and in general she was mildly unhappy, but for the most part it wasn't debilitating.

Personally, I think if someone is considered dangerous enough they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be allowed out in society unsupervised either. One doesn't need a gun to cause harm after all.
 
I'm not OK with any gun control laws.

What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

Generally the debate comes over what exactly constitutes infringement. Particularly since nearly everyone, barring a few on the lunatic fringe, are okay with some sort of restriction on gun ownership, even if it's just age-based.
 
This part I'm fine with, as long as it can be proven that they bought it knowing the person wasn't allowed to own a gun. Although I wonder if that's already illegal. Owning a gun when you aren't allowed to is a crime, buying one for someone should be conspiracy shouldn't it?

Straw buys are already illegal, but sharing the same punishment is not. This I think would cut down on lots of straw buys if you knew that your friend was shady. If you could end up getting the death penalty for their crimes, that's pretty heavy. Straw buys are some of the biggest ways people who cannot legally own firearms get firearms.

Probably not this part. There are a lot of problems with it. It's hard to predict whether someone, even a person with severe psychological issues, is dangerous. And just because someone was deemed dangerous in the past, doesn't mean they still are. I think in a lot of cases this could actually make people less likely to seek psychological treatment because of fear they would lose their guns. My wife is a good example. She suffers from clinical depression and owns (and enjoys shooting) a couple of guns. She isn't suicidal, though she was years ago, and she sees a psychiatrist to help her cope with her depression. The counseling has helped a lot over the last couple years. She would have been a lot less likely to seek that help (and I would have been less likely to encourage her to do so) if we thought it might mean we couldn't own guns anymore, because it wasn't severely impacting her daily life. She had a few rough days here and there, and in general she was mildly unhappy, but for the most part it wasn't debilitating.

I was thinking more like homicidal and violent pysch issues. Depression at its worse means you might off yourself. I've said it before that America really doesn't have a gun problem. It i has a mental health problem. The recent gun massacres were done by people who had serious mental health issues.

Personally, I think if someone is considered dangerous enough they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, they probably shouldn't be allowed out in society unsupervised either. One doesn't need a gun to cause harm after all.

That is true, but a gun makes it easier. Kind of hard to kill 30 people with a knife. Possible, but hard.
 
Generally the debate comes over what exactly constitutes infringement. Particularly since nearly everyone, barring a few on the lunatic fringe, are okay with some sort of restriction on gun ownership, even if it's just age-based.

I'm pretty sure most people would agree that people shouldn't be allowed to own tanks and automatic shotguns. You can literally clear a street of people with some automatic shotguns in seconds. They don't call them street sweepers for nothing.
 
Too many variables with both.

1. Person purchasing might not know the other is not allowed to have a gun.

2. Too many things could be determined as mental health problems.
 
Straw buys are already illegal, but sharing the same punishment is not. This I think would cut down on lots of straw buys if you knew that your friend was shady. If you could end up getting the death penalty for their crimes, that's pretty heavy. Straw buys are some of the biggest ways people who cannot legally own firearms get firearms.

Oh, I thought you just meant they'd get the same penalty as the person they bought for would get for possessing the gun illegally. If you're talking about giving them the same punishment the other person got for a crime they committed with the gun, I'm vehemently against that, unless it can be proven that the person who bought them the gun knew they were going to commit the crime.

I was thinking more like homicidal and violent pysch issues. Depression at its worse means you might off yourself.

The problem is that it's still quite difficult to determine whether someone might become homicidal or violent when they have mental health issues. And it's pretty callous to brush off the people who commit suicide. Far more people are killed by guns each year via suicide than by homicide or any other reason.

I've said it before that America really doesn't have a gun problem. It i has a mental health problem. The recent gun massacres were done by people who had serious mental health issues.

This I very much agree with, which is why I think it's stupid to try to solve the problem with gun control, when we should be looking at solving the underlying mental health issues. Gun control is just curing the symptoms.

That is true, but a gun makes it easier. Kind of hard to kill 30 people with a knife. Possible, but hard.

Not really. There are a lot of serial killers who have killed a lot more people than any of these mass shootings. It still doesn't address the point that someone who is considered too dangerous to own a gun for fear of what they might do with it should probably be in some sort of treatment facility somewhere and not allowed to roam loose.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure most people would agree that people shouldn't be allowed to own tanks and automatic shotguns. You can literally clear a street of people with some automatic shotguns in seconds. They don't call them street sweepers for nothing.

That's a myth. At most ranges that a shooting would occur at, buckshot only spreads a few inches. It's hardly enough to 'clear a street of people'. At least no more effective at it than any other fully automatic firearm would be.
 
Oh, I thought you just meant they'd get the same penalty as the person they bought for would get for possessing the gun illegally. If you're talking about giving them the same punishment the other person got for a crime they committed with the gun, I'm vehemently against that, unless it can be proven that the person who bought them the gun knew they were going to commit the crime.

How about if they knew their friend was likely to commit some crime, but not necessarily the specific one they did? Honestly, I see straw buyers as accomplices. You buy a fire arm for a friend you know is shady and then they go and do something shady? I see no reason not to hold you accountable. We charge get away drivers with often the same punishment.

The problem is that it's still quite difficult to determine whether someone might become homicidal or violent when they have mental health issues. And it's pretty callous to brush off the people who commit suicide. Far more people are killed by guns each year via suicide than by homicide or any other reason.

You can find a way to kill yourself without a gun. Killing 30 people in a school is much harder without a firearm.

Not really. There are a lot of serial killers who have killed a lot more people than any of these mass shootings. It still doesn't address the point that someone who is considered too dangerous to own a gun for fear of what they might do with it should probably be in some sort of treatment facility somewhere and not allowed to roam loose.

But these people don't do it all at once.
 
How about if they knew their friend was likely to commit some crime, but not necessarily the specific one they did? Honestly, I see straw buyers as accomplices. You buy a fire arm for a friend you know is shady and then they go and do something shady? I see no reason not to hold you accountable. We charge get away drivers with often the same punishment.

I'm fine punishing someone if it can be proven that they had foreknowledge of the crime and assisted with it.

You can find a way to kill yourself without a gun. Killing 30 people in a school is much harder without a firearm.

Unlikely, since the worst school killing in American history was done with a bomb. And it's pretty well proven that people who have easy access to a gun are much more likely to successfully commit suicide than people who don't.

But these people don't do it all at once.

So it's somehow better for 50 people to get killed one at a time than 30 all at once?
 
Would you be okay with a gun control proposal that had the following:

1) Straw Buyers suffer the same punishment as the person they bought the firearm for
2) Current Background checks updated to include psych and medical histories to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

1. If they knew the person was not eligible to have the gun and intended to use it in a crime. They would already be an accomplice under current law in my state and subject to the same punishment so it would be redundant.

2. No.
 
I'm fine punishing someone if it can be proven that they had foreknowledge of the crime and assisted with it.

Isn't providing a firearm used in a crime assisting?

Unlikely, since the worst school killing in American history was done with a bomb. And it's pretty well proven that people who have easy access to a gun are much more likely to successfully commit suicide than people who don't.

Weren't most kids killed in Columbine by firearms? The bomb, as I understand didn't do that much damage.

So it's somehow better for 50 people to get killed one at a time than 30 all at once?

No, but one at a time gives the authorities time to stop it. 30 at once doesn't. They're both terrible, but one has more time to prevent more deaths.
 
1. If they knew the person was not eligible to have the gun and intended to use it in a crime. They would already be an accomplice under current law in my state and subject to the same punishment so it would be redundant.

Are they subject to the same punishment? Last I understand, straw buy punishments generate lesser sentences.
 
Are they subject to the same punishment? Last I understand, straw buy punishments generate lesser sentences.

I guess it would depend on the judge and the underlying crime, but they probably wouldn't get the same time due to the sentencing guidelines. They would likely be under by a chunk would be my gut instinct.
 
I guess it would depend on the judge and the underlying crime, but they probably wouldn't get the same time due to the sentencing guidelines. They would likely be under by a chunk would be my gut instinct.

As I understand it, no straw buy punishment law generates the same punishment. You know your friend has a serious blood feud with a guy and you buy him a gun he cannot legally have and then he goes and kills that guy with the gun you bought? I don't see how you're NOT an accomplice here.

I don't believe that America needs a wholesale change in gun laws. I think we need tweaks to existing laws. Making straw buyers suffer the same penalty as those who committed the crimes with the firearms purchased for them who had reasonable beliefs about what that buyer would do would help curtail straw buys.
 
Isn't providing a firearm used in a crime assisting?

If it was known that the person was going to commit a crime with it, then yes.

Weren't most kids killed in Columbine by firearms? The bomb, as I understand didn't do that much damage.

I'm not talking about Columbine.

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, but one at a time gives the authorities time to stop it. 30 at once doesn't. They're both terrible, but one has more time to prevent more deaths.

One at a time also doesn't draw nearly as much attention as 30, and makes it much easier to escape police attention for long periods of time, as evidenced by the fact that most of the really prolific serial killers weren't caught for years, and most people who commit mass shootings are caught or killed almost immediately.
 
No. I don't support any more gun control legislation than what we currently have, first, because it would amount to further infringement on the 2a, and mostly because it wouldn't likely have any effect on our current gun crime rates.
 

That is a whole new level of sore loser. But is that really comparable to today? While both guns and explosives are way more powerful, the accessibility of the latter has gone down compared to the first.

One at a time also doesn't draw nearly as much attention as 30, and makes it much easier to escape police attention for long periods of time, as evidenced by the fact that most of the really prolific serial killers weren't caught for years, and most people who commit mass shootings are caught or killed almost immediately.

But how many serial killers were caught early on into the careers? Think we're missing that.
 
No. I don't support any more gun control legislation than what we currently have, first, because it would amount to further infringement on the 2a, and mostly because it wouldn't likely have any effect on our current gun crime rates.

What makes you think stronger straw buy punishments wouldn't cut down on them? Potential death penalty for buying someone a gun? Ouch.
 
What makes you think stronger straw buy punishments wouldn't cut down on them? Potential death penalty for buying someone a gun? Ouch.

Number one- I only support the death penalty for murder which was premeditated, and can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't support killing a criminal who does not meet those criteria.
As for punishments, the current fines and imprisonment seems adequate to me.
 
Number one- I only support the death penalty for murder which was premeditated, and can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't support killing a criminal who does not meet those criteria.
As for punishments, the current fines and imprisonment seems adequate to me.

It was just an example.

Say that someone got life or 50 years for a murder. Don't you think that might deter someone from straw buying them a weapon if they knew their friend might commit a murder with it and they could get the same punishment?
 
It was just an example.

Say that someone got life or 50 years for a murder. Don't you think that might deter someone from straw buying them a weapon if they knew their friend might commit a murder with it and they could get the same punishment?

It doesn't matter to me if it "might" deter them. It's already illegal, and has a defined punishment. I don't support punishing someone for crimes they didn't commit, and I certainly don't support putting someone in prison for 50 years for a straw gun sale. Most of the guns used in crimes aren't bought via straw sales, and the real problem is cultural, and not due to a lack of gun laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom