• 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!

The regulation free alternative

Like I said "it's possible" I didn't say "we should do it" I didn't say it was "practical." But there's no denying that gun control can work to reduce gun crime, if done a certain way, but again I'm not saying it should be done that way. We have that freedom and I don't support giving it up, but of course like all of you know freedoms have consequences responsibilities. And one of those consequences of our loose(when compared to other nations) gun laws is that criminals have easy access to those weapons. For example we all know that a common way weapons enter criminal hands is that they are stolen, however other nations have avoided that problem by allowing so few people to have weapons which means that break-ins don't typically result in stolen weapons because there are no weapons to steal in the first place.

That's a consequence of having the kind of gun laws that we do. But again I'm not saying that consequence is worth giving up our right to own firearms, but I cannot deny that consequence exists.
If you are not for it, then why bring it up.
You want to know what I am for?
You pull a piece to do a crime, you get to hang. Period.
 
If you are not for it, then why bring it up.
You want to know what I am for?
You pull a piece to do a crime, you get to hang. Period.

I bring it up because its important to fully understand the issue and not let ideology or beliefs get in the way of a rational view of the world.

Anyway, lets not talk about what a silly notion it is to kill everyone who uses a firearm in a crime.
 
Like I said "it's possible" I didn't say "we should do it" I didn't say it was "practical." But there's no denying that gun control can work to reduce gun crime, if done a certain way, but again I'm not saying it should be done that way. We have that freedom and I don't support giving it up, but of course like all of you know freedoms have consequences responsibilities. And one of those consequences of our loose(when compared to other nations) gun laws is that criminals have easy access to those weapons. For example we all know that a common way weapons enter criminal hands is that they are stolen, however other nations have avoided that problem by allowing so few people to have weapons which means that break-ins don't typically result in stolen weapons because there are no weapons to steal in the first place.

That's a consequence of having the kind of gun laws that we do. But again I'm not saying that consequence is worth giving up our right to own firearms, but I cannot deny that consequence exists.
Criminal access to firearms has precisely zero to do with our 'gun laws'. We have draconian illegal drug laws...they manage just fine. Hell, we have on paper some pretty solid illegal immigration laws. But...20-30 million illegal immigrants testifies to the useless nature of 'law' without actual 'enforcement'.
 
Criminal access to firearms has precisely zero to do with our 'gun laws'. We have draconian illegal drug laws...they manage just fine. Hell, we have on paper some pretty solid illegal immigration laws. But...20-30 million illegal immigrants testifies to the useless nature of 'law' without actual 'enforcement'.

So you see no connection with citizens being able to purchase weapons and criminals stealing them? Look its a simple, if you allow people to buy, own, carry, a valuable and fairly small product if we're talking about a pistol than you have to accept that sometimes that product will get stolen, whether its a gun, a wallet, an ipod, whatever. I'm saying you could end gun theft but not allowing anyone to own a gun, and thus eliminate a major source of criminal's firearms in this country the same way you could end the illegal sale of stolen ipods by banning ipods. I'm not saying that we should ban ipods, or guns, but I'm saying that we have to accept that theft of these things is a part of owning them and having them so commonplace in our society.

In other words, if you want guns to be free and open for anyone to acquire you'll have to accept that criminals will have those weapons as well.

Also I did say compared to the rest of the world, compared to them we have extremely loose gun laws, that's all I was saying there.
 
So you see no connection with citizens being able to purchase weapons and criminals stealing them? Look its a simple, if you allow people to buy, own, carry, a valuable and fairly small product if we're talking about a pistol than you have to accept that sometimes that product will get stolen, whether its a gun, a wallet, an ipod, whatever. I'm saying you could end gun theft but not allowing anyone to own a gun, and thus eliminate a major source of criminal's firearms in this country the same way you could end the illegal sale of stolen ipods by banning ipods. I'm not saying that we should ban ipods, or guns, but I'm saying that we have to accept that theft of these things is a part of owning them and having them so commonplace in our society.

In other words, if you want guns to be free and open for anyone to acquire you'll have to accept that criminals will have those weapons as well.

Also I did say compared to the rest of the world, compared to them we have extremely loose gun laws, that's all I was saying there.
Not a single connection, no. I see a criminal element in this society that has CLEARLY demonstrated an ability and will to get any and all manner of illegal and even banned substance. I see that same element demonstrating the means and will even to smuggle in and possess those substances into PRISONS for Gods sake. They have demonstrated you could remove every legal firearm within this country's border and the criminals would STILL get them. And the reason is simple...people in this country lack the will to go after gangs and the VAST majority of people that commit those crimes. They close their eyes and minds to the actual problems, then faced with the consequences, moronically turn to target law abiding citizens and Constitutionally protected freedoms.
 
Not a single connection, no. I see a criminal element in this society that has CLEARLY demonstrated an ability and will to get any and all manner of illegal and even banned substance. I see that same element demonstrating the means and will even to smuggle in and possess those substances into PRISONS for Gods sake. They have demonstrated you could remove every legal firearm within this country's border and the criminals would STILL get them. And the reason is simple...people in this country lack the will to go after gangs and the VAST majority of people that commit those crimes. They close their eyes and minds to the actual problems, then faced with the consequences, moronically turn to target law abiding citizens and Constitutionally protected freedoms.

If that were the case why do countries that have banned firearms not have the same problem the US has with them, because after all criminals would still get them right? But they clearly haven't.
 
If that were the case why do countries that have banned firearms not have the same problem the US has with them, because after all criminals would still get them right? But they clearly haven't.
Do those countries have the same gang problems we have? And Im sorry...you are simply wrong. In Japan post ban, the Japanese gangs WERE in fact smuggling in weapons regularly on the black market exchanges from India, the Phillipines, etc. That finally changed when the Japanese government addressed the actual PROBLEM...criminal use of firearms with maximum sentencing. They did what you seem unwilling to do.
 
Do those countries have the same gang problems we have? And Im sorry...you are simply wrong. In Japan post ban, the Japanese gangs WERE in fact smuggling in weapons regularly on the black market exchanges from India, the Phillipines, etc. That finally changed when the Japanese government addressed the actual PROBLEM...criminal use of firearms with maximum sentencing. They did what you seem unwilling to do.

Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.

Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
 
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.

Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.
Comparatively, we dont have a 'firearm problem'. (thats YOUR problem...like every other position you take, you target the wrong thing. Something about that whole personal responsibility gig). We have around 100 million law abiding citizen firearm owners in possession of approximately 300 million firearms. by a ridiculous margin, you will NEVER have to worry about those law abiding citizens. You damn sure dont have to worry about the guns. No...you DO have to worry about the scumbag types that would USE them, but then...that would require you actually TARGETING them. And see...thats where you go very very limp. Its 'the guns'. Because you have no problem targeting the inanimate. You have no problem targeting the law abiding citizen. but when it comes to those responsible...well..its not REALLY their fault, is it. Its their environment. its the economy. Its society. Its the eeeeeevil gun industry. Its EVERYONE but those that commit the crimes in the first place. Which takes us right back to similar discussions and you loving them right to death.
 
If that were the case why do countries that have banned firearms not have the same problem the US has with them, because after all criminals would still get them right? But they clearly haven't.

For one, they are generally much smaller nations.
Two, they dont have a constitution.
Three, they dont have as much "multiculturalism".
 
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.

Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.

Not "everyone" will have guns. I know plenty of people that do not own a firearm.
 
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.

Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.

Japan is island. We aren't. Guns that are legal are already smuggled here, as well as guns that are banned. It's pretty silly to think if the 2nd. A didn't exist that wouldn't still have criminals with weapons. What makes you think the same people bringing in Coke, Heroine, ect wouldn't start trafficking more guns if they were banned?
 
Japan is island. We aren't. Guns that are legal are already smuggled here, as well as guns that are banned. It's pretty silly to think if the 2nd. A didn't exist that wouldn't still have criminals with weapons. What makes you think the same people bringing in Coke, Heroine, ect wouldn't start trafficking more guns if they were banned?
The problem is very simple for those making the "if we just banned them" argument, it wouldn't do one damn thing to solve crime. We have thousands of miles of coast, many of the beaches that make up said coast are hidden away and not regularly patrolled because...............there isn't enough manpower to do so, it's not possible, being from La. I know of many small beaches where a person could get whatever they wanted in. Add to the multiple thousands of miles of coast, a porous border to the south, then add the limited manpower of the ports, and you have a situation where the only way to stop the black market is to deregulate the open market and take the profit away from the criminal element driving it.
 
As I've said a hundred times, I don't support banning weapons, but there are examples of how it can be done and its been shown to be succesful in disarming both civilians and criminals. You cannot deny that the gun laws and enforcement policies of European countries for example do not work to reduce both gun crime and armed criminals, its a simple look at the facts.

The argument shouldn't be that "gun control never works" because it has been shown to work if you're willing to give up a few freedoms, the argument should be and what my argument is is that "Gun control doesn't work unless you give up the freedom to own a weapon completely." In other words, magazine bans do nothing, banning fully auto doesn't do anything, you either go all the way or really might as well go nowhere. And since going all the way would mean giving up an important freedom I don't think its worth it although I do acknowledge that total gun control can work and has been shown to work, much like government driven capitalism has been shown to work as an economic policy in China but I don't support that either.
 
That article is about the international arms trafficking. It’s about legitimately manufactured and owned weapons (notably military ones) making their way on to the black market and being used by terrorists or international criminals. The article also recognises it as a problem that can't be stopped, only managed and mitigated.

I don't think this poses any greater problem to those who support greater restrictions of private gun ownership than it does to those who support fewer restrictions. For the former it highlights the fact that regardless of legal restrictions and regulation, illegal markets would continue to make some firearms available and for the latter it highlights one of the risks of wider gun ownership in that it provides greater resources for those who would misuse them.

As with the specific issue the article covers, I think both these can only be managed, not prevented but neither aspect is a knock-out blow to the respective position.
 
Well I can see nobody has a clue of Japan’s history and is using utter bull**** to forward a false argument. Japan is a POLICE STATE. Because criminals prefer other weapons does not mean crime and violence is gone. Suicide is a vehicle thing,. What better way then just drive your car into wall. Oh wow he did not use a gun so that is OK. Is that success for gun control and gun control can now brag about it to fools who think it might help?

Crime and violence is a social problem that has absolutely nothing to do with the number of guns in society. Therefore controlling guns cannot change crime.

When are firearm owners going to learn that the first requirement of gun control is to prove a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between gun and crime. They have not done that in 200 years of desperate searching and junk science research.

So gun control advocates where is your proof? Lets have that so we can see you are not liars.

Arms control in Japan was followed by the most violence Japan has ever seen. Is that a recommendation for gun control? It was also introduce with an utter and complete lie to make it likeable to a foolish public.

The degree was probably the last truthful political statement on arms control made in the world would that interest anyone or do they now actually believe the lies of government over citizen arms control?

In 1588, the kampaku of Japan, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, issued the following decree:

1. Farmers of all provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of weapons. If unnecessary implements of war are kept, the collection of annual rent (nengu) may become more difficult, and without provocation uprisings can be fomented. Therefore, those who perpetrate improper acts against samurai who receive a grant of land (kyunin) must be brought to trial and punished. However, in that event, their wet and dry fields will remain unattended, and the samurai will lose their rights (chigyo) to the yields from the fields. Therefore, the heads of the provinces, samurai who receive a grant of land, and deputies must collect all the weapons described above and submit them to Hideyoshi’s government.

2. The swords and short swords collected in the above manner will not be wasted. They will be used as rivets and bolts in the construction of the Great Image of Buddha. In this way, farmers will benefit not only in this life but also in the lives to come.

3. If farmers possess only agricultural implements and devote themselves exclusively to cultivating the fields, they and their descendants will prosper. This compassionate concern for the well‑being of the farms is the reason for the issuance of this edict, and such a concern is the foundation for the peace and security of the country and the joy and happiness of all the people... Sixteenth year of Tensho [1588], seventh month, 8th day.

Prior to the late sixteenth century, Japanese of different classes carried swords and other weapons for self-defense during the chaotic Sengoku period, and also as personal ornaments. However, at times the people used these weapons against their samurai overlords in peasant revolts (ikki) and the even more threatening combined peasant/monk uprisings (ikko-ikki). Thus, Hideyoshi's decree was aimed at disarming both the farmers and the warrior monks.

To justify this imposition, Hideyoshi notes that farms end up untended when the farmers revolt and have to be arrested. He also asserts that the farmers will become more prosperous if they concentrate on farming rather than on rising up. Finally, he promises to use the metal from the melted-down swords to make rivets for a Grand Buddha statue in Nara, thus securing blessings to the involutary "donors."
What Was the Sword Hunt in Japan?

Japanese Gun Control

Japan: Gun Control and People Control
Japan: Gun Control and People Control
 
Japan never had a firearms problem like we have now, to say that they had something similar and solved it is completely wrong. Also in Japan "criminal use of a firearm" includes owning one in most cases, you don't want to go there.

Patently incorrect and utter rubbish. Japan’s arms "problem" was one of the master not liking the peasants being armed. Do learn something of Japan's history rather than sucking on gun controls poison teat.

Cross country comparisons are gun control greatest smoke and mirrors trick. It's an easily disproved lie like the 43:1 lie but it will not die. There are to many believers out there digging them out the grave.

Anyway all I'm saying is that is if you have a free and open gun market than everyone will have guns, criminals and citizens, but if you completely close the civilian firearms market entirely you can actually control criminal's access to firearms. Both decisions have consequences but both are possible, even your own argument concedes this point by saying that Japan managed to address its criminal gun problem by creating additional laws and harsher sentences.

Anyway I'm saying this is obvious rubbish. It is not possible to control anything by limitations. Give me an example of a successful ban. Just one and PROVE it was successful.

Crime is a SOCIAL problem that cannot be solved by messing with inanimate objects. Only an idiot would think this will help.

However there are plenty of idiots who think limiting alcohol will work, limiting drugs will work, limiting firearms will work....

By what mechanism will any limitation work that can be shown to be effective? What is the magic ingredient? I want to patent it.
 
I would note the okinawan martial arts weapons systems were a reaction to this disarmament by the Japanese overlords and turned FARM implements into weapons

Nunchaku-Rice Flail
Bo-The staff
Kama-the rice sickle
Tonfa-the rice grinder
Sai-an implement for planting rice

all turned into effective weapons against sword armed samurai
 
In my opinion, this is a big problem for folks who wish to ban guns of any type, or any accesory.
The Illicit Arms Trade
This link shows black markets have already been established to meet the demand by people who either can't get firearms, or people who want guns, magazines, suppressors, ect. which have already been banned. If you banned Semi-auto rifles, and/or high-cap mags what makes you think the black markets wouldn't simply step up to meet the additional demand? If you acknowledge that they would how would you solve this problem?

I'll play devils advocate here.

I don't think the democrats are saying that a gun ban... or gun restrictions, will solve the "gun problem" in america. I think what they are saying is that it's a step.

You know, like the reason we have all the regulations regarding driving.
-you need to be X years old at least
-you need to do X courses
-you need to do X hours of driving
-you need to pass X exams

Now even with all these regulations, you still have accidents that happen. But I am willing to be that if you were to have no such regulations... just let people who want to drive, drive as long as they have a car... you'd have a lot more accidents. People would learn half-assed driving, half-assed legislation, barely learn the road signs. etc. And of course there would be people who would voluntarily and willingly learn all the right things... but those that won't because they're lazy stupid or overconfident will get into accidents... and kill not just other stupid ,reckless idiots, but also the good people who tried to do the right thing.
 
I'll play devils advocate here.

I don't think the democrats are saying that a gun ban... or gun restrictions, will solve the "gun problem" in america. I think what they are saying is that it's a step.

You know, like the reason we have all the regulations regarding driving.
-you need to be X years old at least
-you need to do X courses
-you need to do X hours of driving
-you need to pass X exams

Now even with all these regulations, you still have accidents that happen. But I am willing to be that if you were to have no such regulations... just let people who want to drive, drive as long as they have a car... you'd have a lot more accidents. People would learn half-assed driving, half-assed legislation, barely learn the road signs. etc. And of course there would be people who would voluntarily and willingly learn all the right things... but those that won't because they're lazy stupid or overconfident will get into accidents... and kill not just other stupid ,reckless idiots, but also the good people who tried to do the right thing.

Can I throw one more wrinkle in here.

I believe others are saying let me have open access to any car I want. If it has a turbo engine and I can afford it, why not. If it can go faster than any police car, why not.
 
Can I throw one more wrinkle in here.

I believe others are saying let me have open access to any car I want. If it has a turbo engine and I can afford it, why not. If it can go faster than any police car, why not.

Sure. So it's the whole concept of regulation vs no regulation.

no speed limit anywhere vs speed limits according to road signs / no magazine ammo limits vs magazine limits (the whole thing about 20rounds magazines or w/e)
no drivers license needed to drive vs drivers license at all times when ur at the wheel / no gun permits vs gun permits
no lessons for driving needed vs mandatory lessons for driving / no background checks vs background checks

and so on and so forth.

Now some people can argue the extremes of both.

personally I think that no regulation is bad regulation. I also think that too much regulation is bad regulation... and too much regulation is also predisposed to being full of holes.
In the case of driving and cars. do I think that regulation has made the road safer? yes. I think that mandatory lessons, examinations and all that good stuff has reduced the chance for driving accidents to happen. I'm sure that without such regulation, things would be very, very bad and the roads would be death traps. it doesn't fix the problem completely, but it does help in reducing it.
 
Sure. So it's the whole concept of regulation vs no regulation.

no speed limit anywhere vs speed limits according to road signs / no magazine ammo limits vs magazine limits (the whole thing about 20rounds magazines or w/e)
no drivers license needed to drive vs drivers license at all times when ur at the wheel / no gun permits vs gun permits
no lessons for driving needed vs mandatory lessons for driving / no background checks vs background checks

and so on and so forth.

Now some people can argue the extremes of both.

personally I think that no regulation is bad regulation. I also think that too much regulation is bad regulation... and too much regulation is also predisposed to being full of holes.
In the case of driving and cars. do I think that regulation has made the road safer? yes. I think that mandatory lessons, examinations and all that good stuff has reduced the chance for driving accidents to happen. I'm sure that without such regulation, things would be very, very bad and the roads would be death traps. it doesn't fix the problem completely, but it does help in reducing it.

The only issue is, driving is not a right.
 
The only issue is, driving is not a right.

How is that a defense? Nobody is arguing to ban all guns. Or to ban guns at a federal level. They're talking about putting in place legislation that will hopefully lead to less gun murders. Just like there are incremental regulations that were put over the course of years and decades to protect people who drive cars... from car safety regulations to regulations regarding who can drive said cars and when.
 
How is that a defense? Nobody is arguing to ban all guns. Or to ban guns at a federal level. They're talking about putting in place legislation that will hopefully lead to less gun murders. Just like there are incremental regulations that were put over the course of years and decades to protect people who drive cars... from car safety regulations to regulations regarding who can drive said cars and when.

I am just saying that anytime we do an argument like this, we are not framing it correctly. At the end of a day, we are talking about the Bill of Rights.

I find it very easy for the government to change laws regarding cars and how they are used. Which ones are allowed. Who is allowed to use that vehicle and where.

Our forefathers had transportation in their day and they didn't see the need to include it in the bill of rights. They had guns as well and felt those necessary to include.

I feel if we make the comparison between driving and firearm ownership we are doing the argument a disservice.
 
I am just saying that anytime we do an argument like this, we are not framing it correctly. At the end of a day, we are talking about the Bill of Rights.

I find it very easy for the government to change laws regarding cars and how they are used. Which ones are allowed. Who is allowed to use that vehicle and where.

Our forefathers had transportation in their day and they didn't see the need to include it in the bill of rights. They had guns as well and felt those necessary to include.

I feel if we make the comparison between driving and firearm ownership we are doing the argument a disservice.

Ok, how would you frame the discussion?

Because just saying: bill of rights says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon; is not sufficient argument when you're dealing with legislative proposals that don't ban or don't "infringe" upon that right.

Having to pass some sort of test(like a background check), some sort of an exam, is not infringement... it's common sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom