• 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!

What are the benefits of guns?

Force, by definition, is an escalation. Our currrent laws give police the authority to summarily execute people. They are rarely held accountable. They shoot people all the time because the person had a knife.
No it doesn't, it gives VERY specific guidelines under which the use of deadly force is allowed. Haven't there recently been instances where cops that exceed those guidelines have been prosecuted and convicted?
manofknowledge said:
I support gun ownership. I just believe it should require a license and registration. People should not only be accountable for what they do with a gun but also what happens to their gun over time.

Controls on automatic weapons work very well. They are rarely used in crimes even though they provide superior fire power. Why. You have to have a license to own one.
And also extremely rare. Registration and licensing would work fine with the people least likely to use a gun for illegal purposes: the millions of honest, law-abiding people who already own guns. I seriously doubt many criminals and gang members would apply for licenses or register the guns they buy off the street.
 
My mistake on the Illinois gun regulatons. it is clear most illegally owned guns in Illinois come from out of state where they are not regulated.

Illinois is the largest source of traced guns in Illinois, with the number of traced guns reaching three times the number of guns from any other state. 2/3 of the guns traced in California come from California.

Are you implying no one wants a fully automated weapon if they were not well regulated?

Why would you infer that? My point was that they weren't abused by lawful owners prior to NFA 1934, nor were they abused by lawful owners prior to the 1986 Hughes Amendment. Do you know how popular AR pistols are because of NFA 1934?
 
Currently Illinois does not require a license or registration to own a gun. Guns in Chicago must be registered but that only applies to the city of Chicago and not surrounding suburbs. Consequently a lot of people legally own unregistered guns around Chicago. Requiring a license to carry a concealed gun also doesn't register each gun to an owner. In both cases a lost or stolen gun need not be reported. A gun brought from another state is not registered either.

Why do controls on automatic weapons work so well?

They don't.
 
Explain? Considering automatic weapons are rarely used in crimes how do the regulation not work?

Because they were very rarely used in crimes before regulation. There's nothing to show the the regulations are the cause of their low use in crime.
 
You have to have a license in Chicago to own a gun, and a license in California to carry one concealed. How come those licensing requirements aren't stopping crime?

Carl Rowan was one of the staunchest advocates for the enforced removal of guns from the hands of all Americans, at least until he was arrested for using his illegal gun to shoot a black kid for swimming in his backyard pool without permission. He offered reasons for why he should be allowed to have a gun even though he had said nobody should be allowed to have a gun.
 
Because they were very rarely used in crimes before regulation. There's nothing to show the the regulations are the cause of their low use in crime.

Are you arguing that no one would want an automatic weapon if the were as easy to obtain as a semi-automatic?
 
Title says it all.

I know that the Constitution allows for guns to be owned privately.

But seriously what are the benefits of gun ownership ?

I suspect the main benefit (other than gratification is shooting them) is psychological

What are the benefits of owning a high performance sports car...or a big engine, all-wheel-drive truck that never goes off road - other than to make someone feel better about themselves ?

Lets get the OP back on board....
 
Are you arguing that if everyone who has an assault rifle had a machine gun, the number of crimes that would occur using them would not increase?

apparently you don't understand that an assault rifle is a machine gun
 
Are you arguing that if everyone who has an assault rifle had a machine gun, the number of crimes that would occur using them would not increase?

How many crimes are there using "assault rifles" given the 15 million of them owned by the public? Given the number of bump stocks out there, how many have been used in a crime? How long after the semi-auto AR-15 was introduced for sale to civilians did it take for a civilian to use one in a mass shooting?
 
apparently you don't understand that an assault rifle is a machine gun

Given that the holiday season is approaching, I move that every time someone writes "machine gun" they have to append a parenthetical "(Ho Ho Ho)".
 
How many crimes are there using "assault rifles" given the 15 million of them owned by the public? Given the number of bump stocks out there, how many have been used in a crime? How long after the semi-auto AR-15 was introduced for sale to civilians did it take for a civilian to use one in a mass shooting?

That is a deflection from my question. Answering a question with a question is no answer at all.
 
That is a deflection from my question. Legal assault rifles are semi-automatic.

No, that's not the correct terminology. "Assault rifles" are by definition selective fire, and they are legal to own, too.
 
That is a deflection from my question. Answering a question with a question is no answer at all.

I gave you examples of "scary weapons", like you seem to consider machine guns, that are commonly owned with a extremely tiny number of illegal uses compared to the number owned.
 
You have to have a license in Chicago to own a gun, and a license in California to carry one concealed. How come those licensing requirements aren't stopping crime?

Because criminals do not obey laws.
 
apparently you don't understand that an assault rifle is a machine gun

In the end, who cares? There is no authority whereby the federal government could ban or limit the sale of machine guns.
 
Are you arguing that if everyone who has an assault rifle had a machine gun, the number of crimes that would occur using them would not increase?

Irrelevant. Most people with machine guns will not be committing crimes with them.
 
You have to have a license in Chicago to own a gun, and a license in California to carry one concealed. How come those licensing requirements aren't stopping crime?

because the laws are different across the street, obviously

good god,
 
How many crimes are there using "assault rifles" given the 15 million of them owned by the public? Given the number of bump stocks out there, how many have been used in a crime? How long after the semi-auto AR-15 was introduced for sale to civilians did it take for a civilian to use one in a mass shooting?

I seem to recall the bump stock was only used in the commission of a single crime.
 
That is a deflection from my question. Legal assault rifles are semi-automatic.

WRONG. A semi-automatic rifle is not an 'assault' rifle. What is wrong with people owning assault rifles (fully automatic rifles)?
 
Back
Top Bottom