• 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!

"Trying to save lives here" Group releases plan to reduce gun violence in Cincinnati

So you admit that this study would be used to push for bans on semi-automatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban and or a ban on 11 to 30 round standard capacity magazines under the guise of a high capacity magazine ban? I am surprised that are upfront about that.

Who cares?

It seems you are anti-knowledge. Let's just report the facts. A study consists of graphs, numbers, statistics, comparisons. Are you afraid of the truth?

Just because you don't believe in global warming, should that mean we shouldn't study climate?

A study itself is not political. How it is interpreted can be but I support putting it all out there. It sounds like you know any study will be bad showing guns need to be restricted more. Are you afraid of the truth?
 
So you admit that this study would be to push for anti-gun laws?

Yes, probably.

If marijuana studies show it can help treat depression and suicidal thoughts, shouldn't it be legal then?

Why are you anti-knowledge???
 
Yet you have the magic pill for "gun violence". And yes I quoted "gun violence" I've never seen or heard of a gun get violent. And that pill is ban them all right?

Ya, it is called restricting them. That will slow down gun violence. It isn't that difficult to understand.
 
Yes, probably.

If marijuana studies show it can help treat depression and suicidal thoughts, shouldn't it be legal then?

Why are you anti-knowledge???

If the results of the study are predetermined, thevstudy isn't scientific. It's political.
 
The Republicans are clearly politically motivated. No amount of reason, facts, or science will cause you to support common-sense gun laws.

Can you refer us to the science that proves a pistol grip, an adjustable shoulder stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug on a rifle is a significant threat to public safety?

These have been bogeymen for gun control zealots for decades, so there must be something.
 
Can you refer us to the science that proves a pistol grip, an adjustable shoulder stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug on a rifle is a significant threat to public safety?

These have been bogeymen for gun control zealots for decades, so there must be something.

I don't think some of you people don't understand basic human nature. The majority of humans are not cold-blooded killers you know?
 
So we shouldn't save leaves because you selfishly want to buy guns? Shameful.

People want to save lives without treading on the rights of others Bucky.

The elephant in the closet........ is the angry, emotionally undeveloped, uneducated, single mothers bringing their kids up in poverty in bad neighborhoods.

The leadership in these community has been missing for decades and the kids run amok on the streets. The adults live in total fear of the kids.

Car jackers in Chicago range from 10-17 years old.

Gun-toting Chicago carjacking suspects range in age from 10 to 17 years old, police say | Fox News
 
I don't think some of you people don't understand basic human nature. The majority of humans are not cold-blooded killers you know?

Most are not murderers and rapiers either. And yet we have laws for those.

Heck, most would even be careful when crossing intersections and give right of way to pedestrians. And yet we still have traffic lights.

Is this all the slippery slope to communist Nazi Muslim tyranny?
 
Who cares?

It seems you are anti-knowledge. Let's just report the facts. A study consists of graphs, numbers, statistics, comparisons. Are you afraid of the truth?

Just because you don't believe in global warming, should that mean we shouldn't study climate?

A study itself is not political. How it is interpreted can be but I support putting it all out there. I
Nonsense. If 2nd amendment opponents didn't think the study couldn't be used to push for more anti-2nd amendment laws then they wouldn't be pushing for the study. There are people on your side with enough money to fund such a study. The reason Michael Bloomberg, Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign aren't funding a study with thier own money is because they knows the results will never be seen as credible by anyone except by other anti-2nd amendment trash. Anti-2nd amendment trash want a study is funded with tax payer money because it gives more credence to a anti-2nd amendment study under the guise of being unbiased.
It sounds like you know any study will be bad showing guns need to be restricted more.

I know that the only reason anti-2nd amendment trash want the study is because they think they can make the study say that. So I am not going to give you a baseball bat when your side has basically admitted to wanting to hit us over the head with it.
 
Who cares?

It seems you are anti-knowledge. Let's just report the facts. A study consists of graphs, numbers, statistics, comparisons. Are you afraid of the truth?

Just because you don't believe in global warming, should that mean we shouldn't study climate?

A study itself is not political. How it is interpreted can be but I support putting it all out there. It sounds like you know any study will be bad showing guns need to be restricted more. Are you afraid of the truth?

It isn't our side that's anti-knowledge. The Democrats are insisting these "common sense" laws are necessary to reduce gun violence. None have been approved by CDC after a scientific study. They aren't waiting on studies. That's anti-knowledge.

Universal background checks, with no limit on cost to the citizen.
Reduce magazine capacity to 5 rounds - any magazine with gerat than 5 capacity is a high capacity magazine Oregon state bill SB 501
Classify any semiautomatic weapon capable of accepting a "high capacity magazine" as an "assault weapon" - Ohio state bill SB260
Ban "assault weapon"s, ie, all semiautomatic firearms.
Allow manufacturers to be sued for the actions of criminals.
Restrict the number of firearms allowed to be purchased to one per month.
End online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits and gun parts.
Pass red flag laws.
Require licensing to own a firearm, a Constitutionally protected individual right.
Mandatory training to own a firearm, a Constitutionally protected individual right
Prohibit legal personal manufacture of firearms.
Mandatory safe storage of firearms.in violation of DC v Heller.
Register all firearms, even though we can't even arrest a felon for not registering a firearm in their possession.
Limit ammuntion purchases to twice the capacity of any firearm owned per month
Require a background check for all ammunition purchases
Limit ammunition purchases to 20 rounds per month.
Ban silencers, which are legal in the UK, France and the Nordic countries, among others.
 
I don't think some of you people don't understand basic human nature. The majority of humans are not cold-blooded killers you know?

Why did you quote my comment if you weren't going to respond to it.
 
The United States of America

IF you could guarantee me that all criminals would turn in their guns, the only reason "we" would need them would be against the "peaceful" Democrat rioters.
 
IF you could guarantee me that all criminals would turn in their guns, the only reason "we" would need them would be against the "peaceful" Democrat rioters.

The problem with the laws today is that criminals can easily obtain guns legally.
 
The problem with the laws today is that criminals can easily obtain guns legally.

Your plan to make criminals turn their stolen guns in?
 
Then why place more restrictions on legal gun owners?

Speed limits and traffic lights are put up primarily because a handful of people are dangerous and reckless drivers. So we put these restrictions on legal drivers. Should we stop and just leave everyone free?
 
Back
Top Bottom