Try the political quiz

10 Replies

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas disagreed…1yr1Y

Chicago has very strict gun laws and yet the highest gun related crimes

This is a bad argument, considering anyone in Chicago can simply drive like an hour or two away to a place with completely different laws to access guns...that's the entire point of needing national gun laws, so that someone can't just drive to the next town/state to circumnavigate their own laws. Secondly, you're right: if a criminal really wants a gun, then they will obviously be willing to break laws to get one...so, why not make that as difficult as possible for them? Shouldn't we be making it as actively difficult, annoying, and disincentivizing as we can, as opposed to just...doing nothing or making it easier?

 @99J2R76 from Texas commented…1yr1Y

Doing so would effectively be stripping law-abiding citizens of their second amendment rights which is a massive, long-winded debate in itself. Secondly, if cartels from Mexico are sending billions of dollars worth of illegal substances across the border each year, they could easily do the same for firearms, and nationally banning firearms in the US would give them an amazing opportunity and market for illegal firearms sold to criminals and gangs. Therefore, you would be taking away the best method of self-defense against criminals from law-abiding citizens while giving criminals the best method to hurt unarmed citizens.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…1yr1Y

Firstly, the extent of second amendment rights is already under regulation, the question is simply how far that extent should go. Things like national gun registration, mandatory training licencing/certification, red flag laws, gun-free zones, etc. are all things that would have profound effects on our gun problem, while simultaneously not impacting those who are actually law-abiding citizens. Even things like AR bans have already existed in this country before, and also proved to be statistically beneficial against mass shootings. Secondly, I already addressed this point about illegally acce…  Read more

 @9B6P92Q from Texas disagreed…12mos12MO

The government’s own study of the Clinton AWB found that the ban had no measurable impact on violent crime. Moreover, the Columbine massacre happened smack dab in the middle of the AWB, which did nothing to prevent it. The Clinton AWB was nothing more than a ban on scary-looking weapons, and focused on features that have absolutely nothing to do with a weapon’s effectiveness or lethality. It banned rifles like the AR-15 while allowing essentially identical weapons like the Ruger Mini-14 (which fires the EXACT SAME cartridge as the AR-15, from detachable magazines holding 30 or more rounds, at the EXACT SAME rate of one round per trigger pull).

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

I definitely agree that the Clinton ban simply didn't do enough to tangibly solve the problem; it was ultimately, like almost everything Democrats do, more performative than anything. Granted, there was a noticeable drop in mass shootings during the years of the ban, but it obviously didn't do enough. I'm definitely not saying that we should simply copy this ban, nor am I suggesting that a mere ban alone will solve the greater issue, but I am saying that there are absolutely plenty of policies that we should be enacting, yet aren't. To suggest that we do nothing would be the more ridiculous notion.

 @9B6P92Q from Texas disagreed…12mos12MO

If your argument was true, then the neighboring places with less restrictive gun laws would have just as big a crime problem as Chicago. They don’t.

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…12mos12MO

First of all, you understand that the population of Chicago alone is like a third of the population of the entire state of Indiana, less than a half hour away, right? You don't think that maybe a city of 2.7 million people will inevitably have more crimes than some rural town with a gun show? Moreover, there still are mass shootings in smaller towns too, it's not like only major cities have them, not to mention that "gun laws" are absolutely not the only, or even most significant, factor of general crime. It's simply a fact that if strict laws apply to one place, and not another, then people can and will go to that other place to do those things, which is why we need national laws for these things...

 @98HPNWL from Indiana disagreed…1yr1Y

I live in chicago. Gun Violence is high but you can just go to another place to get a weapon and come back...

 @98SQ367 from Michigan commented…1yr1Y

Chicago is a leftist hellhole like Detroit, NYC, California And other Metropolitan Democrat run cities. They have the most gun control laws but the highest homicide rates.

 @98HPNWL from Indiana commented…1yr1Y

Also, It says I live in Indiana. I am currently on vacation so it should change when I go back

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this answer.

Last activeActivity1 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias40%Audience bias97%Active inPartyUndeclaredLocationWolverine Lake, MI