- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
An attempt to ban guns in the US would spark a civil war. Rebels would have the support of a significant portion of military and law enforcement. The country would collapse.
The US also has higher crime rates than other modern countries. Maybe we should forego the chaos of an unconstitutional gun ban and instead address the toxic culture of crime in a soft judicial system.
First, threats of physical violence on the Internet are pathetic and should be mocked.
Second, there is no middle ground because our politics have become tribal. One tribe wants to get rid of all guns, and the other side sees any effort as an attemp to get rid of all guns and so they rally against it.
No one will take on the difficult task of targeting only illegal firearms (in a broken legal system), it doesn’t win votes from either side.
“Marines. Second to fight. Right behind the lady-boys and he-girls”
“Marines. Not the tip of the spear, but right behind the dull point”
“Marines. Running toward the sound of chaos, cautiously, and after the B Team”
Or maybe just maintain the worlds finest with brave volunteers...
Of course it’s troubling. No one is unfazed by kids getting killed in schools (even if less fazed by an accidental discharge resulting in no injury). I’m also concerned by rabid reactionists using dead kids as a means to push through an agenda that isn’t the primary problem.
The US likely has one of the highest rates of legal gun ownership by responsible adults. We also have high rates of soft judges and a system of plea bargains, resulting in no justice and little disincentive to violent crime. We have high rates of untreated mental illness with a strong correlation between a rise in crime and the movement to close down mental health facilities. Our crazies are now in jail, along with druggies and pushers, leaving far less room for violent criminals with illegal gun tendencies.
There’s a false narrative that gun owners don’t care about dead kids. I simply would like to see some mental health support and a responsible Judiciary before we start punishing hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens for the criminality that our broken courts and absent asylums fail to hinder.
is a concerned parent someone with an agenda ?
Not necessarily, but everytown is. Look, car accidents are bad. Fatal car accidents are worse. If I presented statistics that made lumped every fender bender with fatal collisions, and then presented it as though they were all the same thing, it would be dishonest. That’s what everytown does.
concern over a gun being discharged at school in now turned into someone with an “ agenda “
No, linking these events with real school shootings is indicative of someone with an agenda, as is the case with everytown.
Incidentally, since this started as a terrorist topic, the worst school shooting in world history was a terrorist attack.
Your border laws would be called draconian over here. This is because your laws are much more easily enforced, so you are likely to have less illegals to deal with. You have a smaller area to secure and it is surrounded by a moat. Trying to create the equivalent of a moat for us (a wall) is political taboo. If we tried to join that list you posted, it would be called a Muslim ban.
Though human consciousness provides a form and language for mathematics, the essentials are independent and objective. Just as a bear is a bear, regardless of the existence of taxonomy, the relationships of quantities persist regardless of the existence of human mathematics.
It’s their right, but they are wrong headed. I wouldn’t be surprised if no uniformed officer ever thought to patronize the place before it was announced that they couldn’t. Now no officer out of uniform, nor any of their family/friends would consider it. And I’m sure the people who were inspired to be new patrons are just top notch folks.
In this debate you provide two choices for level of importance. Either “very” or “not at all”. This is a stark false dichotomy.
I side with “not at all” because the village can play an important role in the formation of a person, but given good parenting, it is not essential. The essential socializing role of society comes long after the essentials of childhood have been covered.
Not only is the parents role essential, but the villages role is not essential. The most important role the village has is the formation of ones behavior within a village. But this role can be filled by parents alone, whereas the role of parents cannot be filled by a village. (This assumes the goodness and fitness of both parents and village.)
The benefits of society serve to aid parents in the raising of the child. Society does not directly have much at all to do with the raising. It takes parents to raise a child. Parents will do better in society than in the woods, but the job is for the parents.
A village isn’t even good at raising a child. People have different views and different methods. If you want a thoroughly confused, bitter, maybe violent human, leave him to the village.
It takes parents to raise a child. After the child is sufficiently raised, with its foundations sufficiently set, the village may (not must) assist with socializing, but that’s about it.
Punishment was the original, evolved method of prevention, and humans internalize it. As such, laws are more about punishment than prevention. When enough people smoke pot to make everyone decide that pot smokers aren’t so bad, laws against (punishment for) pot smokers change. If people ever decided the same for methheads and crack fiends, the laws would change for them as well. Though there may be reasons that those particular perceptions are less likely to change.