Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    15 Jan '11 20:46 / 5 edits
    This idea was deemed off topic in the "Should High-Capacity Mags Be Banned" thread so I'll post it here:

    Given the wide availabilty of guns in the US it isn't feasible to impose an outright ban (at least for now) since the only people who would abide by it are the ones who ought to have one when one (of many) gun toting nut jobs breaks into their house and threatens the life of them and their family.

    Instead I propose that a restriction could perhaps be placed on the availability of bullets to the general public (these being the things that actually do the killing). That restriction would be an allowance of, say, 6 bullets at any one time. This should be more than enough to stop an attacker but not enough to go on a rampage. What's more, to purchase any further bullets requires you have less than this maximum, and can give a solid account of why there is a discrepancy. What this means is if you say you "lost them" you're out of luck, but on the other hand if you can show that 2 (for example) were used to defend yourself, and you provide police documentation to show this, then you're entitled to purchase 2 more (should the need to defend yourself arise again in the future).
    Any argument that you might need more if you're going target shooting could perhaps be met by forcing that the bullets for these sessions are purchased at the shooting range, and any excess returned when you leave.
    For arguments along the lines of, "what if you have seven different guns, each requiring different types of ammunition?" then who actually needs seven guns!?
    As for those who have a legitimate need to use guns for hunting or warding off pests, then as special cases this restriction wouldn't apply so long as the bullets they require are not for weapons they possess that can be easily concealed.

    One of the things this sort of system would undermine is the ease with which someone can restock after using their gun for murder, or prepare for a mass killing etc.., yet it would still enable those who hold and use them responsibly to have some means of warding off would be attackers.



    Thoughts?
  2. 15 Jan '11 20:53
    Originally posted by Agerg
    This idea was deemed off topic in the "Should High-Capacity Mags Be Banned" thread so I'll post it here:

    Given the wide availabilty of guns in the US it isn't feasible to impose an outright ban (at least for now) since the only people who would abide by it are the ones who ought to have one when one (of many) gun toting nut jobs breaks into their house and ...[text shortened]... them responsibly to have some means to ward off would be attackers.



    Thoughts?
    If you wish to kill large numbers of people guns are the least of your worries. The Oklahoma bomber proved that.

    I know, lets pass laws against making bombs and blowing large numbers of people up.

    Brilliant!!
  3. 15 Jan '11 21:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you wish to kill large numbers of people guns are the least of your worries. The Oklahoma bomber proved that.

    I know, lets pass laws against making bombs and blowing large numbers of people up.

    Brilliant!!
    How many people are killed per year by a bomb in the U.S.?

    "In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun." http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence
  4. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    15 Jan '11 21:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    If you wish to kill large numbers of people guns are the least of your worries. The Oklahoma bomber proved that.

    I know, lets pass laws against making bombs and blowing large numbers of people up.

    Brilliant!!
    I see...thanks.
  5. 15 Jan '11 21:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    How many people are killed per year by a bomb in the U.S.?

    "In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun." http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence
    And if Al Qaeda sneeks the big one in how many die? My guess is well over that number.

    How many of those guns were illegal or that you consider should be illegal in your link or are you suggesting that all guns be banned?
  6. 15 Jan '11 21:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    And if Al Qaeda sneeks the big one in how many die? My guess is well over that number.

    How many of those guns were illegal or that you consider should be illegal in your link or are you suggesting that all guns be banned?
    And you think people having guns will prevent Al Qaeda from exploding "the big one"? Can you explain the rationale behind that.

    As to how many would have been prevented, you probably should have read the page that I linked to. I wasn't very hard to find this page - http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/assault/awb_violence.pdf EXAMPLES OF ASSAULT WEAPON VIOLENCE REPORTED SINCE BAN EXPIRED IN 2004
  7. 15 Jan '11 22:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    And if Al Qaeda sneeks the big one in how many die? My guess is well over that number.

    How many of those guns were illegal or that you consider should be illegal in your link or are you suggesting that all guns be banned?
    So, I am to gather that you think because there is a possibility that Al Qaeda could explode a large bomb killing thousands, that these numbers are acceptable. Is that it? Isn't that like saying that we should eat lead paint because the mercury in tuna could make you sick.
  8. 15 Jan '11 23:28
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    And you think people having guns will prevent Al Qaeda from exploding "the big one"? Can you explain the rationale behind that.

    As to how many would have been prevented, you probably should have read the page that I linked to. I wasn't very hard to find this page - http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/assault/awb_violence.pdf EXAMPLES OF ASSAULT WEAPON VIOLENCE REPORTED SINCE BAN EXPIRED IN 2004
    Why don't you google the number of deaths caused by alcohol per year. It is also around 100,000. So what kind of band would you like the make on alcohol?

    Of course, it is not as violent a death, unless it is an automobile crash, so maybe you prefer it over guns.
  9. 15 Jan '11 23:28
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    So, I am to gather that you think because there is a possibility that Al Qaeda could explode a large bomb killing thousands, that these numbers are acceptable. Is that it? Isn't that like saying that we should eat lead paint because the mercury in tuna could make you sick.
    My only point here is that if one truly wanted to kill large numbers of people guns are not the way to go.
  10. Standard member Agerg
    The 'edit'or
    15 Jan '11 23:53 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    My only point here is that if one truly wanted to kill large numbers of people guns are not the way to go.
    Is this the standard defence of unconstrained gun usage???

    You can kill more people with a nuclear bomb so giving people devices, without discrimination or restraint, designed specifically for the purpose of putting holes in other humans (or animals) causing severe pain (or death) and permanently fecking up the workings of their body (if they live) is ok???
    Also let's not forget about the other people who people who have to live with this "totally acceptible" state of affairs - like mothers and fathers burying their bullet hole ridden sons and daughters.

    Should people be walking round with miniguns and rocket launchers if they so choose because more people die of influenza???
  11. 16 Jan '11 00:02
    Having laws made hundreds of years ago that were "practical" then and still using these (largely the) same laws in 2011 is another.

    If you are willing to argue that a reduced magazine (30 shot, 15 shot whatever) will minimise the chances of terrible incidences like this recent one from happening you are being intellectually dishonest in not adressing the MAIN ISSUE like the OP has. In 2011 there should be no need for any general citizen to need to own a firearm - sure you have farmers etc who use them - l am talking about Joe Blow who lives in the Suburbs of any major city (in ANY COUNTRY)

    No proliferation of firearms (including all sorts of semi auto and full auto weapons - like any fker needs these (fkn nutjob NRA) = no wackos being able to shoot people - regardless of magazine size.

    Look at other democratic societies and look at any known results on firearm related injuries and deaths......GO the FKN second amendment - good old US of A being a shining beacon to reason here.

    Wake up - it is not the 13 colonies, there aren't wild bears and injuns waiitng to pounce - there are only gangs and druggies and whackjobs with easy access to all they need - thanks to your 2nd Amendment.
  12. 16 Jan '11 00:57 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Is this the standard defence of unconstrained gun usage???

    You can kill more people with a nuclear bomb so giving people devices, without discrimination or restraint, designed specifically for the purpose of putting holes in other humans (or animals) causing severe pain (or death) and permanently fecking up the workings of their body (if they live) is ok??? with miniguns and rocket launchers if they so choose because more people die of influenza???
    My only point is that bombs are illegal but people still use them. You seem to think that making guns illegal will curb their use. Perhaps they will, but at what price? You could also make alcohol illegal. That also would probably begin to bring down alcohol related deaths which stand at about 100,000 deaths as well. Is that worth the price? Every argument I get into about the state, not only making alcohol legal, but selling it, winds up in a history lesson about the difficulties of prohibition. So what is the difference with guns?

    The odd thing is that those on the left seem OK with legalizing drugs which cause about 100,000 plus deaths a year, but not with fire arms that do the same. Why?
  13. 16 Jan '11 01:06
    Originally posted by whodey
    My only point is that bombs are illegal but people still use them. You seem to think that making guns illegal will curb their use. Perhaps they will, but at what price? You could also make alcohol illegal. That also would probably begin to bring down alcohol related deaths which stand at about 100,000 deaths as well. Is that worth the price? Every argum ...[text shortened]... ugs which cause about 100,000 plus deaths a year, but not with fire arms that do the same. Why?
    Perhaps?????

    Get your head out of the sand.

    Price.....hmmmm let me think...how about up to 100,000 less gun related injuries / deaths in the US alone (per year)

    You could also make alcohol illegal - this is a completely different argument - why dont you try to stay on topic.

    There is a massive difference in that is is MUCH easier to control the sale of guns as there is a HUGE differecne inthe number of people making & selling them therefore much easier to regulate (though l agree not straighforward)

    Your throwaway generalisation about drug legalisation is off topic again and grossly incorrect. A small % of people want some drugs legalised - yet your comment makes it seem that this is the general view????? why dont you try to deal with facts instead of propoganda - oh yes thats right, because FACTS show that by allowing easy access to guns there is an immediate increase in instances of violent crime.
  14. 16 Jan '11 01:46 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by nook7

    You could also make alcohol illegal - this is a completely different argument - why dont you try to stay on topic.
    Why is it a different argument? Both have about the same number of deaths attributed to them. I suppose you could argue that guns are easier to regulate, however, they are still the same argument.

    That aside, I thought that illegal drugs had a great deal to do with shootings. If so, all the state would have to do is legalize it and no more gun problem. It makes more sense than building more prisons.


    As you can see, guns and drugs go hand in hand. If you make them illegal, they will pour across the border, which they probably already do. No worries though, I'm sure the extra 3 or 4 soldiers Obama sent to watch the border will be more than enough to catch them.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    16 Jan '11 02:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    No worries though, I'm sure the extra 3 or 4 soldiers Obama sent to watch the border will be more than enough to catch them.
    I thought is more than 3 or 4, whodey. Like thousands of extra law enforcement personnel; and there's now the most there's ever been; and that both crime and illegal immigration on the southern border are currently at lower levels than before Obama took office. Have you got a link backing up your "the extra 3 or 4 soldiers Obama sent" claim?