• 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 ad - 1981

Threegoofs said:
Reality.

Automatic weapons are not used in US shootings much.

They were used in the 20s and 30s. It seems like an odd coincidence that gangsters used to raid police and NG armories to get their weapons but oddly they stopped in 1934... dontcha think?

I think we can clearly see that gun control really worked here.
Click to expand...

the ones used in the 20 s and 30s were rare-and mostly taking from NG armories.

but lets say you are right-what was the justification of a ban in 1986 where there had been 50 years of no violent crimes with legally owned autos?
 
ataraxia said:
Ah yes, the old " 'There is nothing we can do', says the only developed country on the planet where large scale massacres happen regularly".
Click to expand...
Funny thing is that no one I've seen ever says "there's nothing we can do". What they and I am arguing is that the blind chanting "other countries . . ." isn't the answer for a lot of reasons.


atatraxia said:
Then toss in how minutemen in the 18th century were free to carry around any weapon they pleased, and that's why we should be allowed to haul around nuclear ordnanaces. And bonus points for throwing in LIBERALS!
Click to expand...
You're zero for two in presenting cogent comments.
 
Bullseye said:
Funny thing is that no one I've seen ever says "there's nothing we can do". What they and I am arguing is that the blind chanting "other countries . . ." isn't the answer for a lot of reasons.


You're zero for two in presenting cogent comments.
Click to expand...
Then what can we do that has been shown to work?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Exactly, it is intended to establish precedent that limits are not infringements unless those limits are such that nobody can have any gun.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to commit crime with a gun any more than the right to buy gasoline in 'to go' containers is a right to commit arson or the right to buy knives is a right to stab someone with them. The idea that guns cause 'gun crime' is as silly as the idea that baseball bats cause 'baseball bat' crime or that knives cause 'knife crime'.
Click to expand...

Chainsaw massacres are not legal either. But does that mean we should have no regulations on the manufacture or use of chainsaws?

www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_Hurricane_Facts/chainsaws.pdf
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There are plenty of regulations and laws on the manufacture, sale, possession and use of guns. The problem seems to be that criminals, by definition, do not obey such regulations or laws.
Click to expand...

They don't obey traffic laws either. But we have them
 
Rucker61 said:
There's nothing there that prevents the manufacture of a chainsaw that can be purchased and then misused to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Sure. But what would you tell someone who says that any regulation on those chainsaws is the first slippery slope to Soviet style communist dictatorship?
 
ataraxia said:
I would ask the converse question: are all limits unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Since you're incapable of answering a question first, at this point in time, no. Once you answer my question I'll expand on my answer.
 
ataraxia said:
Sure. But what would you tell someone who says that any regulation on those chainsaws is the first slippery slope to Soviet style communist dictatorship?
Click to expand...

Looking in the Constitution for chainsaw rights; it's not showing up.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes you are

And yes I most certainly do

By all means ban smoking in public places...and in private where children are present.

Not sure why that wasn't clear to you.
Click to expand...
And the discharge of firearms is also banned in most public places (there are some exceptions such as public ranges and public hunting grounds). Its also usually banned to discharge firearms in private places, unless you meet certain regulations such as having a safe backstop, ect. Your suggestion about putting a ban on smoking in public places and private places where there's children, if such a ban were to go into effect, and to some extent it already has, it would still not ban the purchase and possession of cigarettes it would only regulate the use. Same thing with guns. At least that's how it should be.

Rich2018 said:
Guns are used to kill people.

Thousands and thousands of times a year.

What part of this are you not getting ?
Click to expand...
Its people that use the guns to kill thousands of times a year, and they use other methods of killing too, knives, bombs, trucks, airplanes, you name it. But there are far more people that use guns who don't use them to kill innocent people than there are that do. The thing is to deal with people that kill, doesn't matter if they use guns or other methods.

Rich2018 said:
Yes, including national and local government.


Though one or two exceptions could be made like Olympic competition guns, shotguns for vermin control for use by farmers.
Click to expand...
And we saw how that worked out with the nazis and the commies and the British empire when they ruled over what now is the USA.

Rich2018 said:
OK...and how do you ban people from owning guns who will use them illegally in the future ?


Are you psychic ?
Click to expand...
In this country you're innocent until proven guilty. And the vast vast vast majority of people who buy guns legally use them legally and never use them to shoot innocent people.

Rich2018 said:
Go ahead and explore how banning some people from owning guns would prevent mass shootings...say the Vegas shooting...or Parkland...or Sandy Hook...

I look forward to your ideas.
Click to expand...
The only shooting of those three that was unpreventable was the Vegas shooting. Even if we did have the kinds of bans on guns that you talk about Stephen Paddock could've gotten the guns illegally. Or he could've done a 9/11 and crashed a plane into the crowd and killed more people than he did by shooting them. He was a pilot after all. As for Parkland there was something wrong with Nikolas Cruz and they knew that before the shooting, they should've done something about him before it was too late. Same thing with Adam Lanza, they knew there was something wrong with him and they tried to have him committed. If he had been committed as he should've been the children he killed would be alive. And he got the guns illegally, he stole them from his mom before killing her.
With school shootings we need armed security on campus, some of the faculty and staff could be armed, as President Trump pointed out they would have to be very specialized but it should be done. It will save children's lives.
 
Threegoofs said:
9808c3d3836876851b93e6bbb95c1eab.jpg


Over 10k excess deaths in 1980. That number has only increased... which means the US has had almost 400,000 additional excess deaths since then.

But think of the FREEDOM!
Click to expand...

Except.. that since that time, murders and the murder rate and violent crime has been reduced tremendously. While.. during the same time.. firearm sales, new people purchasing firearms, woman purchasing firearms, and people getting concealed carry permits has skyrocketed.

So again.. violent crime DOWN..

while handgun sales, carry permits etc UP...

So.. I guess it depends on what matters to you...

Do want MORE people murdered.. but.. have fewer of those people murdered with a handgun..

OR would you rather less overall murders.. so fewer people dying... though you have more of those murders.. done with a handgun?

PERSONALLY... I would like to see less overall murders and less violent crime and a safer society.. because it really doesn;t matter to me if my son is killed by his angry girlfriend.. because she runs him over with her car.. or whether he is murdered by her using a handgun... either way.. he is dead.

Personally... I would prefer that he was less likely to be killed period. And its pretty obvious that handgun control doesn't do anything to prevent murder.. or even suicide (Japan has a much higher suicide rate)..

but that's just me.. and well.. common sense...

but others.. particularly the anti gun folks that think "handguns need to be stopped before they stop you"... don't seem to use common sense much.

Probably why they think that an "gun free zone".. is going to stop a madman intent on killing schoolchildren.

Gosh.. you know.. perhaps if we stopped wasting time and resources on ineffectual "solutions".. like handgun control..

And used those resources on things like social safety nets, better access to mental health and treatment, educational opportunities etc... we would be even better off.
 
Last edited:
Rucker61 said:
Looking in the Constitution for chainsaw rights; it's not showing up.
Click to expand...

It could be if it gets construed as a type of arms. Hey, it could. I have seen figurines in World of Warcraft carrying those around. Could pass for an infantry soldier weapon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom