• 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!

How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buyback) will save?

How many lives do you think an assault weapons ban (with mandatory buyback) will save each year?

  • Total voters
    51
Tlrmln said:
How many lives do you think banning assault weapons (with mandatory buybacks) will save each year in the US.

Please vote and then comment with your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Simply increasing the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia must have some effect.
 
MrWonka said:
Well there seems to be an average of about 1 mass shooting in the United States every week. If we can simply make it a little bit harder to mass murder people that might save an average 1-2 lives a month I would think just in giving people more time to escape or even fight back. Given how many assault weapons are already in existence it might take a few years before you'd start to see the impact though.
Click to expand...

How would banning assault weapons save those lives, specifically?

And if you think we should ban assault weapons to save 1-2 lives per month, how about 56+mph cars? Alcohol?
 
danielpalos said:
Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

Simply increasing the ratio of well regulated militia to unorganized militia must have some effect.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the unorganized militia is not "well-regulated?"
 
Tlrmln said:
How would banning assault weapons save those lives, specifically?
Click to expand...
Any reduction in accuracy, reload time, ease of operation, capacity... could potentially give a victim the extra second or two they need to get out of range or take cover. Given the sheer number of mass shootings that take place in the United States that is bound to make at least some dent.

Particularly with school shootings where a child can likely only obtain a weapon like this by stealing it from his parent. If the parent doesn't have one the kid can't steal it.

Tlrmln said:
And if you think we should ban assault weapons to save 1-2 lives per month, how about 56+mph cars? Alcohol?
Click to expand...
There are in fact many different regulations on speeding and alcohol. You're making my argument for me here.
 
MrWonka said:
Well there seems to be an average of about 1 mass shooting in the United States every week. If we can simply make it a little bit harder to mass murder people that might save an average 1-2 lives a month I would think just in giving people more time to escape or even fight back. Given how many assault weapons are already in existence it might take a few years before you'd start to see the impact though.
Click to expand...
1 a week? Not even close.

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2019: Data From Mother Jones’ Investigation – Mother Jones

Now...if you want to include what leftists LIKE to include as this new way of looking at "mass shootings" in order to sensationalize the argument then Im with you...we can work that. Heck...we can even really sink our teeth into that one. Since the criteria You seem to want to assign includes all the shootings that have been attributed to minority on minority crime and gang violence, then we can and should apply the same laws that will reduce the day to day gun violence in the US...mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

30-40 years PLUS the sentence for the crime. Of course..we are going to have to build a lot more prisons, but on the plus side, since the vast majority of victims are minority, think of the valuable lives we'll save by incarcerating the lives that arent worth much of a ****.
 
MrWonka said:
Those two concepts sure seem like antonyms to me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps thats because you dont understand the term 'well regulated'.
 
haymarket said:
Is has a lot to do with a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Perhaps you have heard that phrase before?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can post a link to a copy of the Constitution that has that phrase in it. It seems to be missing from mine.

For my money, I'd rather not be governed by the whims of 1000 randomly-selected, massively-uniformed individuals who have time to answer telephone surveys in the middle of the day. We (like every other modern western democracy) have a representative government for a good reason.

By the way, do you think people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who have spent pretty much their entire professional careers in politics, are what Lincoln had in mind when he uttered those words (nearly 4 score and 7 years after the Constitution was ratified).
 
Last edited:
Tlrmln said:
Perhaps you can post a link to a copy of the Constitution that has that phrase in it.
Click to expand...

I never claimed the phrase was from the Constitution. Your reading comprehension skills are really something to be desired. But what is from the Constitution is the first three words.... WE THE PEOPLE. Perhaps you have a passing relationship with those?

It is from President Abraham Lincoln and describes our nation and why so many people were willing to risk their lives and liberty for that sacred principle that is at the center of the American way.
 
Tlrmln said:
How many people do you think are killed every year now because assault weapons are legal?


Just because we oppose useless bans on things we enjoy owning doesn't mean we consider gun control to be an "all or nothing proposal."


I didn't call anything an "assault rifle."


We also put limits on the kinds of guns people own. Democrats want more. You don't need a car that can go 70mph, or even 56mph, but I don't see you or anyone else seriously proposing that we ban them.


Some people oppose gun control and bans on abortion. They are two totally unrelated issues.
Click to expand...

Have you gotten dizzy yet with all the spinning you are attempting to do?
 
Tlrmln said:
It's funny that you people keep asking questions like this of gun owners (or hurting related accusations about gun owners), but we never get any indication from you that YOU are willing to sacrifice or contribute anything to save lives.
Click to expand...

Personally, I contributed many years of my life carrying a gun in defense if those people who refuse to defend themselves.

Again, what have you done?
 
Tlrmln said:
Given the fact that the proponents of assault weapons bans continually lie or mislead the public about what they are and the effect they will have, I can't imagine why anyone would care about that.

In any case, I'm not aware of a poll of people who actually knew what an "assault weapon" is before they answered it. When you find one, let me know.
Click to expand...

You started with "assault" weapons. Let's hear you definition of what they are, since you seem to change it at your own whim.
 
haymarket said:
I never claimed the phrase was from the Constitution. Your reading comprehension skills are really something to be desired.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for inferring that you intended your comment to be relevant to the conversation. I guess I shouldn't have made that assumption about someone who would suggest that we should make our laws based on poll data,...

It is from President Abraham Lincoln and describes our nation and why so many people were willing to risk their lives and liberty for that sacred principle that is at the center of the American way.
Click to expand...

... or that the words of any single person have any bearing on how we run the country.

But what is from the Constitution is the first three words.... WE THE PEOPLE. Perhaps you have a passing relationship with those?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware of the fact that those words are written at the beginning of a document that lays out in great detail a representative system of government, and never mentions once anything close to the idea of governing base on the results of opinion polls. In other words, "the People" at the time were wise enough to know that would be a horrible idea.
 
I did not vote on the OP'S poll not because I didn't understand it I've saw it before.
Any form of gun control offered can never use the word "BAN" you will only gt loyal NRA fans saying stuff like ban knives r clubs or cars ect.

However, I've debated this issue before with a list of the possibilities of suggestions and counterpoints

1. the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, Hell I support the 2nd amendment.
2. Nobody's coming to take away your guns ",certainly not me I got other **** to do." Unless you are mentally ill or psychotic then they will only make it difficult for you to buy guns
3. There are very stiff background checks done everyday, Just a few; to get a job ,' background check" ,to get an apartment "background check", to get a house "stiff background check"
to drive a car background check plus driving test ,plus getting renewed every 4 years, keeping a car must have insurance, and a licence to be renewed every year ..
So these Points are good I mean if everybody else goes through background checks shouldn't EVERYBODY go through background checks.

However these points don't seem to be enough for the great NRA.
So I purpose a different venue for the purchase of guns.
Let everybody that wants a gun get one, no background checks, no red flags, if you got the money buy a gun.
How would that work?:peace
 
Arjay81 said:
Personally, I contributed many years of my life carrying a gun in defense if those people who refuse to defend themselves.

Again, what have you done?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think that comment was directed at you, given that I was responding to someone else, or why your past career is relevant to the topic. But I'm happy to read your explanation if you would like to give it.

Arjay81 said:
You started with "assault" weapons. Let's hear you definition of what they are, since you seem to change it at your own whim.
Click to expand...

You voted, so you must have an understanding of what it means. Feel free to point out where I changed my definition, in this thread or otherwise. Given that this is the "Debate Politics" forum, and I was talking about legislative efforts to ban assault weapons, I naturally assumed people would either (1) turn to the definitions in the proposed legislation, all of which are pretty much the same in pertinent part or (2) vote based on their personal understanding of the term, and then explain it in a comment if it differed from (1).
 
danielpalos said:
There can be no well regulated militia of Individuals only the militia of the United States; either well regulated and organized or unorganized.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense if you actually understand what the phrase "well-regulated" means, or what the phrase "unorganized" means when used in conjunction with the word "militia".
 
Tlrmln said:
That doesn't make any sense if you actually understand what the phrase "well-regulated" means, or what the phrase "unorganized" means when used in conjunction with the word "militia".
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, actually. That is one reason I find right wingers, literally, incredible.
 
Arjay81 said:
Have you gotten dizzy yet with all the spinning you are attempting to do?
Click to expand...

Spinning? Pretty ironic given your utter failure to respond to any of the points I made.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, I do, actually. That is one reason I find right wingers, literally, incredible.
Click to expand...

If you understand it, then present your rationale, rather than childish ad homs.
 
Tlrmln said:
I'm not sure why you think that comment was directed at you, given that I was responding to someone else, or why your past career is relevant to the topic. But I'm happy to read your explanation if you would like to give it.



You voted, so you must have an understanding of what it means. Feel free to point out where I changed my definition, in this thread or otherwise. Given that this is the "Debate Politics" forum, and I was talking about legislative efforts to ban assault weapons, I naturally assumed people would either (1) turn to the definitions in the proposed legislation, all of which are pretty much the same in pertinent part or (2) vote based on their personal understanding of the term, and then explain it in a comment if it differed from (1).
Click to expand...

My past career had much to do with these weapons and an understanding of when and how to use them. Completely relevant to the conversation, just something else you wish to belittle and ignore in your bias to make a point. Read the results of your own poll and see that the majority do not agree with you.

Yes, I voted, just not the way you desired me to vote. You changed your definition when things started to not go your way. In the OP no mention of a true political ban at all, just a forced ban by those who have never defended anything at all, like you.
 
Tlrmln said:
Spinning? Pretty ironic given your utter failure to respond to any of the points I made.
Click to expand...

Your "points" have been swirling around making them not worth responding to. Kind of like responding to nonsense stated as fact.
 
Tlrmln said:
If you understand it, then present your rationale, rather than childish ad homs.
Click to expand...

Why? You refuse to listen to anyone's rational when it differs from your own bias and respond with childish statements such as the one quoted.

BTW, you have yet to provide your definition of what exactly an assault weapon is. You simply advocate a step to ban all weapons in the infantile expectation that thi9s will result in no mass killings. False assumption.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom