• 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!

Which of these gun control measures could you support?

Do you support any of these gun control measures?

  • Proposal A

    Votes: 19 82.6%

  • Proposal B

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal C

    Votes: 13 56.5%

  • Proposal D

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Proposal E

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Total voters
    23
BrotherFease said:
I am not saying I support any of these, but I want to know what you guys think of these proposals.

Proposal A - Treat guns like cars. You want to own a weapon, you need a license first and foremost. You then need to get your gun/s registered and renewed on a yearly basis.

Proposal B - Treat gun ownership like the drinking age or the ability to rent a car. Make the age to own a gun 21 years old or 25 years old. If an 18 year old, wants to go shooting, he or she needs to bring a parent or guardian or somebody of legal age.

Proposal C - Put a limit on the number of bullets a gun can fire. Gun manufacturers cannot sell guns in the U.S, if they surpass the legal amount.

Proposal D - Require all gun owners to take a psychological test every year. If you fail, you lose your guns.

Proposal E - Require all school security guards to carry around bean bag guns.
Click to expand...

This is what I'd like to see.

1. Every gun has to be registered.
2. Possession of an unregistered gun is a mandatory prison sentence.
3. People are accountable for their guns regardless of who uses it or how.
4. Pysch testing required if warranted. Should be at the determination of any LEA.
 
There was no option for None.

I dont really object to B but I dont think it would be particularly effective in ending gun crime, so, not really necessary.
 
TurtleDude said:
that is as stupid as having a first and fourth amendment scorecard taking count of every child that was raped or sodomized to make kiddie porn. I realize liberals really hate Gun owners and want to blame the NRA, gun owners and the second amendment for stuff these liberals know lawful gun owners are not responsible for. However, the way we vote really sets you people off
Click to expand...
:twisted:

:twisted:
 
TurtleDude said:
at least you are honest. I'd like to make those who try to limit the second amendment rights of American citizens, an offense of treason. If those "civilized countries" issue firearms to public servants, that sort of answers the question as to why we might want to own them ourselves. People who want to dictate to us that we can not own guns are one of the best reasons for patriotic Americans to be well Armed.
Click to expand...

I want the government to repeal the Second Amendment and order the confiscation of guns. Those who violently resist government agents who come for the guns should be convicted of treason, and punished accordingly.
 
uptower said:
And a car is not an assault weapon, designed specifically to kill people. If something as innocuous as a car requires a license, then guns certainly should, to make sure they are in the right hands. Because of the nature of cars yes, no license is needed to drive on private property but most are not driven on private property. When they are they are not as dangerous. Guns because they are a different nature to cars, can be just as deadly inside or outside the house and wiser countries have taken care to ensure they do not rest in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

that is a hilariously stupid argument-items not designed as weapons that end up killing more people than weapons, are actually far more dangerous. Something that kills thousands without mal intent is more dangerous than something that almost always requires murderous intent
 
jimbo said:
The thing is, though, that at the time of the founding individuals normally kept and bear everything from flintlock pistols to cannons and armed vessels. Seems to me that if they wanted any restrictions they would have said so.
Click to expand...

They never gave the federal government any Article One, Section 8 powers to ban cannons or bombs. But then they specifically restricted the government from interfering with the natural right of self defense. They didn't see owning offensive military weapons as a natural right but they did see owning personal arms for self defense as so protected.
 
My recipe for gun control is get a good sight picture with the crosshairs on the target, take a deep breath and exhale and slowly pull the trigger.
 
Kreton said:
This is what I'd like to see.

1. Every gun has to be registered.
2. Possession of an unregistered gun is a mandatory prison sentence.
3. People are accountable for their guns regardless of who uses it or how.
4. Pysch testing required if warranted. Should be at the determination of any LEA.
Click to expand...

unconstitutional nonsense. We don't have enough prison space for those who actually harm others and yet liberals find merely owning a gun to be a worse crime than rape or robbery. the supreme court has already ruled a criminal or other illegal possessor of a firearm cannot be prosecuted for failing to register his weapons. So you want to push laws that ONLY turn peaceful citizens into felons.
 
uptower said:
And a car is not an assault weapon, designed specifically to kill people. If something as innocuous as a car requires a license, then guns certainly should, to make sure they are in the right hands. Because of the nature of cars yes, no license is needed to drive on private property but most are not driven on private property. When they are they are not as dangerous. Guns because they are a different nature to cars, can be just as deadly inside or outside the house and wiser countries have taken care to ensure they do not rest in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

As long as we are comparing the two, let us keep in mind that very few Industrial societies can function without cars and our society would grind to a halt without them and no other real substitute offered as replacements. They serve a very good purpose that is enjoyed by almost everyone either directly or indirectly.

On the other hand, guns contribute nothing to civilian society and Industrial societies can function quite well without them or with heavy restrictions on them.

So the benefit is far far more for a society with cars than it is in a society having widespread guns.
 
SmartCat said:
I want the government to repeal the Second Amendment and order the confiscation of guns. Those who violently resist government agents who come for the guns should be convicted of treason, and punished accordingly.
Click to expand...

Do you hope for men with guns to carry out your wet dream of government oppression? How many people do you want to die in order to make you feel better?
 
Bullseye said:
My recipe for gun control is get a good sight picture with the crosshairs on the target, take a deep breath and exhale and slowly pull the trigger.
Click to expand...

Aim low for the children
 
TurtleDude said:
1) Unconstitutional-turns a guaranteed right into a privilege-worthless in preventing violent crime

2) If you want to make the voting age, draft age, age to be treated like an adult in the criminal courts, and to contract-then maybe. However, if you can join the army at 18, answer for adult felonies at 18, sign contracts at 18, then its a hypocritical and stupid

3) confuses guns with magazines and is stupid, unconstitutional and worthless as crime control

4) See my response to the first proposal. Violates the second amendment

5) wouldn't hurt to have bean bag guns-unless an active shooter has a shotgun or rifle-then bean bag guns are worthless
Click to expand...

Starting 5 and working backwards...

5) Would agree that this proposal only affects a niche crime with schools and not gun control overall which I thought was his point. Having said that, having gone through the process of hiring security and using police as guards (via hire-police programs)...never again will I use regular security, even when most of the firms employees are ex-military or retired police; they are sloppy with safety regs, allow people to touch their firearms and on at least one instance, I saw one guard play a trick on the other by being able to lift a pistol out and have it firmly in hand before said guard could react. Police, while more formal and active duty (even when not on clock) have their own issues, but at least it doesn't concern safety regs with firearms...you have to depend upon the quality of the officer who is protecting you. Sad as it is to say, most don't do much, while others are helpful. It just depends...my point being that an armed guard in a school is at best. an iffy proposition.

4) Well, the only thing I have to say about this is this: had my little cousin, who suffered from PTSD from his time in Afghanistan and lost pretty much his family and everything, been denied the purchase of a firearm, perhaps, just perhaps, he would have been able to get the help he needed instead of shooting himself in the head. I don't know that he wouldn't have tried another way to do it or not...but at least one option would not have been available to him. And at the very least, he choose not to take anyone with him...so there is at least that.

3) To me, this is more about functionality. There are already design laws in place that go back as far as 1879 that have yet to be determined as unconstitutional. Some have gone through the justice process others have yet to. So, pre-determining a magazine or cylinder load is, in my mind not a question of law. I would, however, agree with you in that decreasing a load capacity doesn't help anyone, but it will decrease the ability for even a criminal to put more bullets in the air as a law abiding citizen. I am not going to touch the argument of being able to stand up to the tyranny of a government nonsense as that is an issue deserving its own topic thread.

2) Largely speaking, I agree but there is one reason why this is brought up; legal drinking age is 21, mostly due to drinking and driving accidents where it is believed that a person over 21, in theory, has more maturity than an 18 years-old in this matter ( I have run bars and liquor stores...you can tell a difference between the two ages).

1) Again, I see nothing unconstitutional about this. In fact, historically speaking, it's what we used to do to make sure our militias were armed. A list of firearms were maintained and recorded. If you purchased a new one, it had to be reported and you were registered and approved. Thus far, the question is left to the states to decide. But again, I see nothing wrong legally as we impose regulations on other rights that we have under the Constitution. Interesting side note: you can be an illegal immigrant and legally own a firearm in the US...think about that for a moment.
 
TurtleDude said:
are you saying cheap handguns are more effective in carrying out suicide than well made ones?
Click to expand...

I'm repeating what the study says. That laws banning junk guns are associated with a statistically significant drop in suicide rates. It feels like you're really reaching for excuses to discredit this information for some reason.
 
Proposal A would actually scale back current gun laws by a great deal. You would no longer have to get a background check for buying a gun and there would be no regulations on ammo capacity (just as there's no legal limit on how fast the car can go). There also wouldn't be any jurisdiction where a background check is required to transfer ownership privately. The only major regulation would be that you would have to be 16 or older to own a gun and would have to pass a test in gun safety.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm repeating what the study says. That laws banning junk guns are associated with a statistically significant drop in suicide rates. It feels like you're really reaching for excuses to discredit this information for some reason.
Click to expand...

I find that to be completely silly. and countries that have gun bans often have higher suicide rates. what exactly is a junk gun anyway. For 50 years there has been an important ban that prevented cheap pistols from coming in as well as top of the line stuff like the walther PPK
 
molten_dragon said:
And yet, despite your feelings on the matter, junk gun bans have still led to a decrease in the suicide rate.
Click to expand...

How does a firearm being "higher" quality and having safety features stop someone from killing themselves? Because we have for awhile have had 18 to 26 thousand suicides with the use of a firearm on average. So I am having to wonder where the hell you are getting your stats from. If you were arguing that those might have lower accidental shootings I could understand. But suicide is deliberate, its not accidental. Plus our overall suicides have gone up. So I don't know where you are getting your numbers from.
600px-Total_suicides_in_the_United_States_1981_2016.png
 
TurtleDude said:
Do you hope for men with guns to carry out your wet dream of government oppression? How many people do you want to die in order to make you feel better?
Click to expand...

Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns without compensation.
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no proof of that.
Click to expand...

I am wondering where his proof at because suicides in this country have gone up. I fail to see how the deliberate act of suicide is somehow stopped by the quality of a gun or the fact it has safety features.

what is a "junk gun" anyway?
Click to expand...

I have found that "junk gun" means low cost gusn that poor people can easily afford. Racists who didn't like the idea of blacks owning guns most likely invented the term to justify banning those guns in order to deny poor blacks their right to keep and bear arms.
 
TurtleDude said:
1) Unconstitutional-turns a guaranteed right into a privilege-worthless in preventing violent crime

2) If you want to make the voting age, draft age, age to be treated like an adult in the criminal courts, and to contract-then maybe. However, if you can join the army at 18, answer for adult felonies at 18, sign contracts at 18, then its a hypocritical and stupid

3) confuses guns with magazines and is stupid, unconstitutional and worthless as crime control

4) See my response to the first proposal. Violates the second amendment

5) wouldn't hurt to have bean bag guns-unless an active shooter has a shotgun or rifle-then bean bag guns are worthless
Click to expand...

Pretty good answers. I would be willing to talk about the size of magazines. I can't really see the need of having an external magazine larger and in addition to the one the gun is manufactured with. Stopping legal adults from exercising their legal rights is a problem, they are either adults or they aren't. Bean bag guns would be good for an unarmed intruder but not a gun weilding felon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom