Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Control

tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:27:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's pretty broad, like saying I'm against food because I don't like peas. There's definitely some firearm legislation that we need (background checks, that kind of stuff). What I am against are "feel good" laws that don't actually accomplish anything productive. For example: there was a law in California a while back (not sure if it's still in effect) that classified any rifle with a pistol grip as an assault rifle, thereby banning it.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:05:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 10:20:22 AM, seraine wrote:
What are you're thoughts on it? I'm against it.

Also, check out this gun control debate: http://www.debate.org... .

I think it deserves more traffic.

Nah, its not that great. Whilst I agree with not having gun control you use some really bad statistics as the crux of your argument...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 6:04:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:05:07 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Nah, its not that great. Whilst I agree with not having gun control you use some really bad statistics as the crux of your argument...

What's wrong with the statistics? I also feel like I could have done better, but it feels better than the amount of views it received.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm categorically for guns and thus against gun control do you seriously delude yourself into thinking that criminals will abide by laws if it's a law that infringes on the right to bear arms??
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:06:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If gun control is the technique you use when you hold and fire the gun, I am all for it.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:27:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.

I suspect that that prefatory clause was aimed at me. I said infringe not lose. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain a gun the people that were criminals yesterday are still criminals today simply because time passses their title of convict does not go away. the people that they know they still do unless they died. Why do you think it would be more difficult for them to obtain guns?
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 8:40:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 6:46:20 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I'm categorically for guns and thus against gun control do you seriously delude yourself into thinking that criminals will abide by laws if it's a law that infringes on the right to bear arms??

It does make it harder, though. That is pretty much indisputable. In fact, countries with gun control have a lot less gun crime than countries with it[1].

[1] http://www.gun-control-network.org...
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 8:41:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons).

My dad would disagree with that as he's a gun collector.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:05:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:27:08 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.

I suspect that that prefatory clause was aimed at me. I said infringe not lose. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain a gun the people that were criminals yesterday are still criminals today simply because time passses their title of convict does not go away. the people that they know they still do unless they died. Why do you think it would be more difficult for them to obtain guns?

It would be more difficult. If the person is a loner or none of his or her friends are willing to give him a gun, he won't be able to obtain it.

It's really not a matter to the degree that it becomes more difficult, but rather than you can no a priori, that it will become more difficult since one method of obtaining a gun is eliminated.

With that said, I am not in favor of gun banning, since a gun ban would just decrease the supply of guns, it would not elminate the gun. Those who have the most utility for guns are the ones likely to purchase a gun. This would likely include criminals, since owning a guns has a productive function as a criminal.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:32:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.

1: What purpose does an amount limit serve?

2: Tighter how?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 9:50:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:05:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:27:08 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.

I suspect that that prefatory clause was aimed at me. I said infringe not lose. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain a gun the people that were criminals yesterday are still criminals today simply because time passses their title of convict does not go away. the people that they know they still do unless they died. Why do you think it would be more difficult for them to obtain guns?

It would be more difficult. If the person is a loner or none of his or her friends are willing to give him a gun, he won't be able to obtain it.

ok how many convicts are loners? to answer that question is only the snitches and even then they are always with someone.

It's really not a matter to the degree that it becomes more difficult, but rather than you can no a priori, that it will become more difficult since one method of obtaining a gun is eliminated.

which method is that?

With that said, I am not in favor of gun banning, since a gun ban would just decrease the supply of guns, it would not elminate the gun. Those who have the most utility for guns are the ones likely to purchase a gun. This would likely include criminals, since owning a guns has a productive function as a criminal.

ok
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:32:03 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.

1: What purpose does an amount limit serve?

2: Tighter how?

1. So you can stop gun stockpiling. One man can buy 30 guns and let his deranged friends use them.

2. Personality tests that make sure that the person in question can handle anger.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:07:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 10:01:41 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:32:03 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.

1: What purpose does an amount limit serve?

2: Tighter how?

1. So you can stop gun stockpiling. One man can buy 30 guns and let his deranged friends use them.

2. Personality tests that make sure that the person in question can handle anger.

1: How many times have there been deranged gunmen that used more than 3 guns?

2: Who gets to decide what constitutes too angry? How do you test for that?
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:11:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 9:50:37 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:05:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:27:08 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.

I suspect that that prefatory clause was aimed at me. I said infringe not lose. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain a gun the people that were criminals yesterday are still criminals today simply because time passses their title of convict does not go away. the people that they know they still do unless they died. Why do you think it would be more difficult for them to obtain guns?

It would be more difficult. If the person is a loner or none of his or her friends are willing to give him a gun, he won't be able to obtain it.

ok how many convicts are loners? to answer that question is only the snitches and even then they are always with someone.

Not necessarily. I don't know much about the personality of criminals and I'm sure that criminals are a heterogeneous bunch but it is easy to see that a lone person can rob a store, or kill somebody.

It's really not a matter to the degree that it becomes more difficult, but rather than you can know a priori, that it will become more difficult since one method of obtaining a gun is eliminated.

which method is that?

Legally

With that said, I am not in favor of gun banning, since a gun ban would just decrease the supply of guns, it would not elminate the gun. Those who have the most utility for guns are the ones likely to purchase a gun. This would likely include criminals, since owning a guns has a productive function as a criminal.

ok

ok
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:34:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:24:39 PM, Lasagna wrote:
I'm against guns.

Why is that?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 10:41:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 10:11:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:50:37 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:05:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:27:08 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:04:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gun control =/= that you lose your right to own a gun. I'm in favor of gun ownership, but I wouldn't want someone with psychological problems or a criminal record owning a gun. It's possible that those with psychological problems and a criminal record would get a gun anyways, but at least it will be more difficult for them to obtain it.

I suspect that that prefatory clause was aimed at me. I said infringe not lose. I don't think it would be that difficult to obtain a gun the people that were criminals yesterday are still criminals today simply because time passses their title of convict does not go away. the people that they know they still do unless they died. Why do you think it would be more difficult for them to obtain guns?

It would be more difficult. If the person is a loner or none of his or her friends are willing to give him a gun, he won't be able to obtain it.

ok how many convicts are loners? to answer that question is only the snitches and even then they are always with someone.

Not necessarily. I don't know much about the personality of criminals and I'm sure that criminals are a heterogeneous bunch but it is easy to see that a lone person can rob a store, or kill somebody.

sure which raises the questions who gave him the gun? besides you are more likely to be killed by someone you know so I reject that a lone person would most likely kill someone.

It's really not a matter to the degree that it becomes more difficult, but rather than you can know a priori, that it will become more difficult since one method of obtaining a gun is eliminated.

which method is that?

Legally

you said one method what others were you talking about?

With that said, I am not in favor of gun banning, since a gun ban would just decrease the supply of guns, it would not elminate the gun. Those who have the most utility for guns are the ones likely to purchase a gun. This would likely include criminals, since owning a guns has a productive function as a criminal.

ok

ok
ok
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 12:30:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 10:07:23 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 10:01:41 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:32:03 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.

1: What purpose does an amount limit serve?

2: Tighter how?

1. So you can stop gun stockpiling. One man can buy 30 guns and let his deranged friends use them.

2. Personality tests that make sure that the person in question can handle anger.

1: How many times have there been deranged gunmen that used more than 3 guns?

2: Who gets to decide what constitutes too angry? How do you test for that?

1. Its called a gang
2. Oh...they have ways *evil smile*
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 12:36:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 8:41:24 PM, seraine wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons).

My dad would disagree with that as he's a gun collector.

Yeah. It only takes one gun to commit a murder. I bet that statistically, the more guns you own, the less likely you are to use them violently.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 12:58:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 12:30:37 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/10/2011 10:07:23 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 10:01:41 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/10/2011 9:32:03 PM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/10/2011 7:56:01 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. There should be a limit on the amount of guns you can own and the type. (I would say max 3 and no automatic weapons). A handgun to protect your house with, a rifle to hunt with, and another. If you want to shoot automatic weapons you can rent one out at a shooting range, you don't have to have one.

2. Tighter background checks on gun owners.

1: What purpose does an amount limit serve?

2: Tighter how?

1. So you can stop gun stockpiling. One man can buy 30 guns and let his deranged friends use them.

2. Personality tests that make sure that the person in question can handle anger.

1: How many times have there been deranged gunmen that used more than 3 guns?

2: Who gets to decide what constitutes too angry? How do you test for that?

1. Its called a gang
2. Oh...they have ways *evil smile*

1: So each gang member buys 1 gun. Even if you take out the ones with felony backgrounds, 3 per person is more than enough to share.

2: lol ok crazy man.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:08:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.

I know, and there should also be full legalization of automatic weapons/assault rifles as well.

I'm also on the border when it comes to allowing civilians own explosives.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:12:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:08:48 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.

I know, and there should also be full legalization of automatic weapons/assault rifles as well.

I'm also on the border when it comes to allowing civilians own explosives.

Yeah, lets GIVE the terrorists bombs. Smart.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:17:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:12:03 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:08:48 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.

I know, and there should also be full legalization of automatic weapons/assault rifles as well.

I'm also on the border when it comes to allowing civilians own explosives.

Yeah, lets GIVE the terrorists bombs. Smart.

Yes, because terrorists RARELY figure out a way to make bombs due to the fact that we have restrictions on them.

With a rag, a glass coke bottle, and a pint of gasoline you can make a molotov cocktail which covers several square yards in flaming gasoline upon impact.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:23:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:17:59 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:12:03 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:08:48 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.

I know, and there should also be full legalization of automatic weapons/assault rifles as well.

I'm also on the border when it comes to allowing civilians own explosives.

Yeah, lets GIVE the terrorists bombs. Smart.

Yes, because terrorists RARELY figure out a way to make bombs due to the fact that we have restrictions on them.

With a rag, a glass coke bottle, and a pint of gasoline you can make a molotov cocktail which covers several square yards in flaming gasoline upon impact.

Can that take down a plane? Plus, heavy explosives are easy enough to create, so lets make it EASIER!
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2011 1:29:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/11/2011 1:23:31 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:17:59 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:12:03 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:08:48 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 7/11/2011 1:02:09 AM, tornshoe92 wrote:
At 7/11/2011 12:39:13 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
There should be basic backround checks on those who wish to purchase guns to make sure there aren't any criminals or mentally disabled people getting a hold of them but after that citizens should be allowed to buy assault rifles if they please and as many as they please.

There are background checks.

I know, and there should also be full legalization of automatic weapons/assault rifles as well.

I'm also on the border when it comes to allowing civilians own explosives.

Yeah, lets GIVE the terrorists bombs. Smart.

Yes, because terrorists RARELY figure out a way to make bombs due to the fact that we have restrictions on them.

With a rag, a glass coke bottle, and a pint of gasoline you can make a molotov cocktail which covers several square yards in flaming gasoline upon impact.

Can that take down a plane? Plus, heavy explosives are easy enough to create, so lets make it EASIER!

I didn't say heavy explosives. I simply said explosives meaning hand grenades, rifle grenades, etc, and even then I'm still borderline.

Even molotov cocktails are banned in the U.S.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.