• 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 best arguments against gun control?

vegas giants said:
No need to ban them. Just control them. You are making the argument that nothing should ever be banned. And we know that is just silly
Click to expand...

We already to control guns with background checks. What we don't control enough is the illegal sale and purchase of guns which we should work harder on to put a stop to. Doing so would put quite a dent in the 30,000 plus gun deaths a year.
 
DebateChallenge said:
We already to control guns with background checks. What we don't control enough is the illegal sale and purchase of guns which we should work harder on to put a stop to. Doing so would put quite a dent in the 30,000 plus gun deaths a year.
Click to expand...

Yes universal background checks and registration would help with that. I agree
 
DebateChallenge said:
And how would registration help?
Click to expand...

If you sell a gun that is registered to you to a criminal and he uses it in a crime and is caught you go to jail. It might stop you from doing that
 
vegas giants said:
If you sell a gun that is registered to you to a criminal and he uses it in a crime and is caught you go to jail. It might stop you from doing that
Click to expand...

So another words you're saying registration will cut down on straw purchases. Registration does not stop straw purchases. Even if with registration you're able to trace straw purchases the fact remains that the straw purchases have already occurred.
 
DebateChallenge said:
So another words you're saying registration will cut down on straw purchases. Registration does not stop straw purchases. Even if with registration you're able to trace straw purchases the fact remains that the straw purchases have already occurred.
Click to expand...

In what way
 
vegas giants said:
In what way
Click to expand...

Lets say somebody buys a gun legally and has it registered as required by law. They then sell it to a criminal who uses it to kill somebody. Sure, with registration they would be able to trace it back to the original purchaser and charge him but the fact remains that the straw purchase already occurred and the damage has already been done and there's nothing they can do to bring the victim back.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Lets say somebody buys a gun legally and has it registered as required by law. They then sell it to a criminal who uses it to kill somebody. Sure, with registration they would be able to trace it back to the original purchaser and charge him but the fact remains that the straw purchase already occurred and the damage has already been done and there's nothing they can do to bring the victim back.
Click to expand...
But now there is an incentive to not make the straw purchase. Basically you are saying people speed and cause accidents. The damage is already done so we don't need speed limits.
 
vegas giants said:
But now there is an incentive to not make the straw purchase. Basically you are saying people speed and cause accidents. The damage is already done so we don't need speed limits.
Click to expand...

There are other reasons registration is bad but that would require another thread, a thread that perhaps I will start. But you've said you don't believe in banning guns so you're not really going against the 2nd argument so lets move on to the third argument, "Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed."
 
DebateChallenge said:
There are other reasons registration is bad but that would require another thread, a thread that perhaps I will start. But you've said you don't believe in banning guns so you're not really going against the 2nd argument so lets move on to the third argument, "Japan didn’t invade America because it knew the population was armed."
Click to expand...

Japan did not invade America because it couldn't. It did not have the resources to do so. But I will be happy to hear your direct evidence that Japan wanted to invade America but did not and you have the direct quotes or evidence that was because America was heavily armed.
 
vegas giants said:
If you sell a gun that is registered to you to a criminal and he uses it in a crime and is caught you go to jail. It might stop you from doing that
Click to expand...

Jalita Johnson. Dontray Mills.
 
Rucker61 said:
The Second Amendment protects "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulate militia".
Click to expand...

You are doing just what I said you would do in the other forum. You consistently ignore the rest of the decision in Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Now, what do you do about the weapons that are commonly not "in common use for lawful purposes"?
 
vegas giants said:
Japan did not invade America because it couldn't. It did not have the resources to do so. But I will be happy to hear your direct evidence that Japan wanted to invade America but did not and you have the direct quotes or evidence that was because America was heavily armed.
Click to expand...

I will have to research that and see if that's indeed the case. Anyway lets move on to the next argument, "Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away."
 
DebateChallenge said:
I will have to research that and see if that's indeed the case. Anyway lets move on to the next argument, "Responsible gun owners shouldn’t have their guns taken away."
Click to expand...

Responsible gun owners won't have their guns taken away under any gun control I support. Not a single gun
 
vegas giants said:
If you sell a gun that is registered to you to a criminal and he uses it in a crime and is caught you go to jail. It might stop you from doing that
Click to expand...

What if the seller sands off the serial number on the gun? I know this is illegal, but some people do it anyway. This would make the gun un-traceable back to them.
 
Wan said:
What if the seller sands off the serial number on the gun? I know this is illegal, but some people do it anyway. This would make the gun un-traceable back to them.
Click to expand...

We would make a much greater penalty be in place for the criminal found with a altered serial number. He won't want to risk it
 
vegas giants said:
We would make a much greater penalty be in place for the criminal found with a altered serial number. He won't want to risk it
Click to expand...
We should do that now while we debate how useless any registrations would be
 
vegas giants said:
I would like less criminals to have them and more law abiding americans to have them.
Click to expand...

How would gun control make guns available to fewer criminals? Criminals can get guns from all sorts of sources, some legal, some illegal. In fact, I think I have seen a manual of some sort circulating on the internet that essentially showed people how to manufacture guns in their own garage. Also, if the new process that you propose is onerous, it might make guns less available to law-abiding citizens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom