• 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
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...



And both countries had more gun safety laws in effect before, when then they had a much lower % of gun deaths than the US. And they have much lower % of gun deaths now. And you demonstrate shocking ignorance of those facts.
 
bluesmoke said:
And both countries had more gun safety laws in effect before, when then they had a much lower % of gun deaths than the US. And they have much lower % of gun deaths now. And you demonstrate shocking ignorance of those facts.
Click to expand...

you just proved you either dishonestly ignored that those countries confiscated guns after registration, or you didn't know. and there is no evidence that their societies became safer after they confiscated firearms. But thanks for admitting that is what you want here
 
TurtleDude said:
you just proved you either dishonestly ignored that those countries confiscated guns after registration, or you didn't know. and there is no evidence that their societies became safer after they confiscated firearms. But thanks for admitting that is what you want here
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to see more and more, not only on this issue, but the most on this one perhaps, that facts, the truth, actually having arguments based on reality are really a thing of the past for gun grabbers.
 
ChezC3 said:
I'm beginning to see more and more, not only on this issue, but the most on this one perhaps, that facts, the truth, actually having arguments based on reality are really a thing of the past for gun grabbers.
Click to expand...

given that few of them really care about crime control, and thus lie about their motivations, it is not surprising that the rest of their comments are completely devoid of rational thought or connected to reality
 
TurtleDude said:
given that few of them really care about crime control, and thus lie about their motivations, it is not surprising that the rest of their comments are completely devoid of rational thought or connected to reality
Click to expand...

I just was reading something about wanting to delete the nation's LE Gang databases. Seems to me, that would be the first place to go reconciling if the proposed Red Flag laws were to get the guns out of potentially dangerous hands. Why would they possibly want to erase that database at this particular time?

:thinking
 
SmartCat said:
Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns without compensation.
Click to expand...

Ironic screen name. :cool:
 
rtfm.jpg

We could reread the manual.

Most fixes are there.
 
jamesrage said:
So the quality of the firearm or lack of safety feature is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

And yet a study on the matter showed that it is not irrelevant. Why it's relevant, I don't know, because the study didn't investigate that. This isn't a complicated concept, it's just one you instinctively reject because you disagree with it.
 
molten_dragon said:
And yet a study on the matter showed that it is not irrelevant. Why it's relevant, I don't know, because the study didn't investigate that. .
Click to expand...

So the study can't say why higher quality firearm with safety features somehow deterred suicides while some lower quality ones didn't? You can't honestly expect anyone with a brain in their head and who isn't rabid anti-gunner to take that study seriously.
This isn't a complicated concept, it's just one you instinctively reject because you disagree with it
Click to expand...

Its the fact you and the study can't explain why. Its why its rejected by anyone with a brain in their head and not a rabid anti-gunner. The study you posted makes as much sense as someone claiming that banning sugar free gum prevents cavities and there is no explanation as to how that occurs and nor does it make sense seeing how sugar free gum doesn't have sugar in it. Suicide is a deliberate intentional act.So the quality of the firearm and the safety features it does or doesn't have is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I don't support any of those. My take is that at minimum, what is available to the police should be available to the People and that there should be no Concealed Carry licenses, both open and concealed carry should be considered standard.
 
vegas giants said:
I think Mary discredits him. Lol
Click to expand...
How? Did Mary post the wrong or incorrect stats? If not then the whole "John lott...or should I say Mary rousch. Lol" is just nonsense by ammo-phobe little girls who piss and shiet their britches at the site of a gun.
 
molten_dragon said:
And yet a study on the matter showed that it is not irrelevant. Why it's relevant, I don't know, because the study didn't investigate that. This isn't a complicated concept, it's just one you instinctively reject because you disagree with it.
Click to expand...

That is why the study regarding suicides and a ban on so called junk guns isn't relevant. They didn't investigate it.
 
jamesrage said:
How? Did Mary post the wrong or incorrect stats? If not then the whole "John lott...or should I say Mary rousch. Lol" is just nonsense by ammo-phobe little girls who piss and shiet their britches at the site of a gun.
Click to expand...

So you dont know that Mary rousch is John lott???? Lol
 
Ikari said:
I don't support any of those. My take is that at minimum, what is available to the police should be available to the People and that there should be no Concealed Carry licenses, both open and concealed carry should be considered standard.
Click to expand...

that standard is objectively sound, easy to understand and eliminates governmental hypocrisy
 
vegas giants said:
So you dont know that Mary rousch is John lott???? Lol
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase my question.

Did John Lott under this Mary persona post the wrong or incorrect stats used in the study and article? If not then the whole "John lott...or should I say Mary rousch. Lol" is just nonsense by ammo-phobe little girls who piss and shiet their britches at the site of a gun.
 
jamesrage said:
Let me rephrase my question.

Did John Lott under this Mary persona post the wrong or incorrect stats? If not then the whole "John lott...or should I say Mary rousch. Lol" is just nonsense by ammo-phobe little girls who piss and shiet their britches at the site of a gun.
Click to expand...

It proves that he is willing to lie to support his cause. He has zero credibility.


You really should read about it.


Its hilarious
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't support any of those measures. I support measures which have a minimal impact on law-abiding gun owners, and which are actually proven to be effective. The three biggest measures I would support are 1) universal background checks, 2) "junk gun" bans, and 3) bans on owning firearms for people who've committed certain violent misdemeanors.

"May issue" rather than "Shall issue" concealed carry laws have also proven effective, but that's a bit more problematic because it's more likely to affect law-abiding owners. Maybe if the appeal process were robust enough I could get behind it.
Click to expand...

1) It is already a felony for a prohibited person to possess any gun and UBGC laws are unenforcible without gun registration.

2) Lower cost guns, like lower cost cars, are sometimes the only affordable choice available.

3) A life sentence for any misdemeanor is a very bad idea. Maybe we should start with lifetime driving bans for anyone with a second traffic moving violation - getting those habitual offenders off of our roadways and, no doubt, saving lives.
 
vegas giants said:
It proves that he is willing to lie to support his cause. He has zero credibility.


You really should read about it.


Its hilarious
Click to expand...

Again did Did John Lott under this Mary Rosh persona post the wrong or incorrect stats?
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Again did Did John Lott under this Mary Rosh persona post the wrong or incorrect stats?
Click to expand...

He's a known liar, no university will have anything to do with him and even pro gun researchers describe his work as garbage in and garbage out. lol
 
vegas giants said:
He's a known liar, no university will have anything to do with him and l
Click to expand...

So that is a no he did not fabricate anything in his study,book or article.

even pro gun researchers describe his work as garbage in and garbage out. lol
Click to expand...


I take it you happen to have links to these "pro-gun" researchers? When I say pro-gun I mean people who oppose firearm registrations, firearm licenses/permits, universal background checks, firearm bans, and they don't go praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia. Not former president Obama's horse **** of he supports the 2nd amendment and "reasonable" gun control laws. And did any of these pro-gun you say describe his work as garbage discredit anything in his studies?
 
jamesrage said:
So that is a no he did not fabricate anything in his study,book or article.




I take it you happen to have links to these "pro-gun" researchers? When I say pro-gun I mean people who oppose firearm registrations, firearm licenses/permits, universal background checks, firearm bans, and they don't go praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia. Not former president Obama's horse **** of he supports the 2nd amendment and "reasonable" gun control laws
Click to expand...

I have been rather well acquainted with "pro gun rights" scholarship for decades and there isn't any real pro gun scholar damns Lotts' works. what lots of the anti gun hysterics ignore is that Lott started off as anti gun, and changed based on what he learned. Almost all the anti gun "studies" come from hard core anti gun propagandists who are engaged in out come based designs where they start with the premise and work backwards to "prove" gun ownership is harmful

my favorite (I posted the evidence years ago) was a study that "found" that a gun in the home was far more likely to harm the homeowner than a criminal but the "Study" counted (in almost every incident it reported) homes where an INTRUDER brought the firearm USED to harm the homeowner into the home. Many of the homes had no other guns or had guns that the homeowner owned but the study tried to pretend that a firearm brought by the person who assaulted others was the same as a gun owned by the occupier that was then used against him or other occupants.
 
MrWonka said:
So how come Fully Automatic Gas powered guns have been successfully banned?
Click to expand...

because we have a supreme court that ignored the second and tenth amendments in the 1930s and subsequent courts "respected" bad precedent. There is no excuse for the hughes amendment still existing. BTW the Supreme court never ever explained why the commerce clause justified the 1934 NFA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom