• 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
Better get started. Repeal takes 2/3 Congress majority 3/4 state majority. That after the process has started.

The US is a civilized country. The last two times it came up, those other civilized countries begged the US to intervene on their behalf. We did. We won.

Not exactly accurate. It’s only 3/4 of States. 2/3 of the Senate, but only to propose.
 
You’ll rely on nothing more than flimsy correlation?

You’ll believe anything with a standard that low.

I guess I should take some random guy on the internet's gut instinct. That's a much higher standard of proof.
 
No I constantly support gun ownership with tighter regulations.

and I doubt you will ever stop wanting tighter and tighter regulations because once you buy into the nonsense that laws that only further restrict currently lawful behavior, will reduce objectively harmful criminal acts, you pretty much cannot ever admit that such schemes don't work
 
I don't know, because that's not what the study was about.
But you said eliminating "junk"guns cut down on the number of suicides in states that enacted bans on those guns and you posted a link to the study. So I am wondering how a firearm being higher quality stops someone from offing themselves? If you were arguing that a ban on "junk" guns with a lack of safety feature cut down on accidental shootings then that would make sense.Because some could see a lack of a safety or an actual poorly made gun accidentally going off due to mishandling and shooting someone. But suicide is deliberate. So the quality of the firearm or lack of safety feature is irrelevant.
 
It may be deliberate, but it's not the product of healthy, rational decision making most of the time.



Well a scientific study says otherwise. You can disagree with it all you like, but that makes you wrong, not the study.

If a scientific study can't explain how the quality of a gun with or without safety features stops someone from committing suicide then the study is meaningless. Correlation does not imply causation.
 
and I doubt you will ever stop wanting tighter and tighter regulations because once you buy into the nonsense that laws that only further restrict currently lawful behavior, will reduce objectively harmful criminal acts, you pretty much cannot ever admit that such schemes don't work

I don't know about tighter and tighter. I have a limit and do not wish to see guns banned entirely. Best not to try and put words in my mouth at all and leave that up to me when I care to share it:

License and registration
background checks including mental health
different levels of licensing for different classes of weapon

I do not accept this is the slippery slope to complete bans. It already works effectively in places like Canada, the UK, Australasia. They still have guns. And far fewer gun deaths.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about tighter and tighter. I have a limit and do not wish to see guns banned entirely. Best not to try and put words in my mouth at all and leave that up to me when I care to share it:

License and registration
background checks including mental health
different levels of licensing for different classes of weapon

I do not accept this is the slippery slope to complete bans. It already works effectively in places like Canada, the UK, Australasia. They still have guns.


in other words you want to harass lawful gun owners and criminals won't follow those requirements. And you demonstrate shocking ignorance. the UK and Australia confiscated guns. In England it was all handguns
 
I don't know about tighter and tighter. I have a limit and do not wish to see guns banned entirely. Best not to try and put words in my mouth at all and leave that up to me when I care to share it:

License and registration
background checks including mental health
different levels of licensing for different classes of weapon

I do not accept this is the slippery slope to complete bans. It already works effectively in places like Canada, the UK, Australasia. They still have guns.

But this means filling out a form!!!!!


Oh the harrassment!!!!!
 
My individual right to bear an AR15 has nothing to do with how you spin the word ‘well’.

We did fight for minority voting rights. Against Democrats. Decades ago. Which minorities can’t vote?

It is the 'conservatives' now pushing for stricter ID and registration laws because of the false claim of voter fraud (a minuscule problem at best). These laws tend to affect African American, native american and Latinx communities.

Yet they will not tolerate stricter gun laws to address a huge problem: frequent mass shootings and tens of thousands of murders, suicides and accidents per year.

I say if the right cared about people's basic rights, they'd fight as hard for voting as they do for the AR-15. Of course minority votes are not quite the tool of white power that a good old Armalite is.
 
It is the 'conservatives' now pushing for stricter ID and registration laws because of the false claim of voter fraud (a minuscule problem at best). These laws tend to affect African American, native american and Latinx communities.

Yet they will not tolerate stricter gun laws to address a huge problem: frequent mass shootings and tens of thousands of murders, suicides and accidents per year.

I say if the right cared about people's basic rights, they'd fight as hard for voting as they do for the AR-15. Of course minority votes are not quite the tool of white power that a good old Armalite is.
you engage in a fraudulent dichotomy and nothing you have proposed would reduce gun violence. Rather, the stuff you and other leftists propose, is designed to harass lawful gun ownership and divert from efforts designed to actually punish real criminals
 
He was a criminal

The state police, however, arrested Stolarczyk on a charge of felony criminal possession of a firearm.

No he wasn't, he was exercising his right to self defense. Idiot laws like you support, are what's wrong with modern gun control. Peckerheads don't know their asses from guns, trying to tell the rest us what's up. It's pure bull****, unsubstantiated, and not a even the slightest proof of reduced crime.
 
No he wasn't, he was exercising his right to self defense. Idiot laws like you support, are what's wrong with modern gun control. Peckerheads don't know their asses from guns, trying to tell the rest us what's up. It's pure bull****, unsubstantiated, and not a even the slightest proof of reduced crime.

Calm down. He was a criminal long before this incident
 
Back
Top Bottom