CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:20
Arguments:19
Total Votes:25
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 An intruder breaks into your home with an illegal gun. How's that steak knife doing? (16)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(6483) pic



An intruder breaks into your home with an illegal gun. How's that steak knife doing?

Sometimes I wonder why Progressives and Democrats are such peasants who want a big controlling Government to run their lives. They watch as the police come to our homes after the intruder has killed everyone.

Maybe you have missed almost every mass killing, or missed all the killings from intruders in our homes.
THE COPS COME AFTER THE KILLING IS OVER!

Our schools, our homes, etc. need to be protected by every means possible including THE GUN!
Add New Argument
2 points

Why would he buy an illegal gun when he can buy a legal one?

This is what I find so frustrating about gun-nuts. Nobody wants to take away the right for a sensible human being to own a gun: someone who is mentally stable, has shown that he can safely use and store his weapon, and makes a point of being law-abiding. What people DO want is to stop making it so that a psycho can legally get a gun easier than a Kinder Egg.

It's not about banning all guns. It's about ensuring, as much as is humanly possible, that there is a national sense of responsibility regarding guns. If you are going to support the ability for anyone to get a gun without any sensible restrictions whatsoever, then you are as a member of a democracy informed by voters, complicit in the deaths of every child that died as a result of a psycho being able to get himself an auto without so much as a mental health exam.

FromWithin(6483) Disputed
1 point

Listen to your own words, and let me show you your total pious hypocrisy to everything you just said!

You said and I quote...... "It's not about banning all guns. It's about ensuring, as much as is humanly possible, that there is a national sense of responsibility regarding guns. If you are going to support the ability for anyone to get a gun without any sensible restrictions whatsoever, then you are as a member of a democracy informed by voters, complicit in the deaths of every child that died as a result of a psycho being able to get himself an auto without so much as a mental health exam."

Now I will replace the word gun in your response with alcohol. Let me repeat what you just said with that small change.......

It's not about banning all alcohol. It's about ensuring, as much as is humanly possible, that there is a national sense of responsibility regarding alcohol. If you are going to support the ability for anyone to get alcohol without any sensible restrictions whatsoever, then you are as a member of a democracy informed by voters, complicit in the deaths of every child that died as a result of a repeat DWI driver being able to buy alcohol in public places and drive without so much as an identification for prior DWI's.

DO YOU EVER GET THE POINT?

There are far more children killed by repeat DWI drivers, and all gun control fanatics can do is worry about guns in these mass shootings, which kill a fraction of kids compared to the weapon of alcohol.

So I ask you, are you complicit in the many more deaths of children by drunk drivers when you refuse to push for back ground checks in bars and nightclubs before selling alcohol without so much as an identification?

Before you waste our time with ludicrous excuses of how we already have alcohol restrictions, DON'T!

We already have gun restrictions as well. We can't buy guns or alcohol underage.

People who want to hunt must pass tests to make sure they understand the safety issues with guns.

Where's the test for responsibility when it comes to alcohol consumption?

Yes we have laws against drinking and driving just as we have laws telling people they can not kill each others. People still do it!

If you actually believe the Left's goal is not to ultimately take our guns as they have done in Europe, Australia, Arab nations, Asian nations, etc, etc, then you truly are a moron! Many Liberals have admitted this is their final goal.

We don't trust one word out of their mouth and they have already proven our fears with the New York State so called "Safe Act".

This new gun law did not single out so called assault rifles. It made it illegal to have hunting rifles in our homes that held more than seven rounds! That law would have made our hunting rifles illegal and we would have to turn them in or face jail.

I am fine with laws keeping criminals from getting guns. I am fine with no longer making so called assault rifles if they defined them in a way that would not prevent hunting rifles holding ten rounds of ammo as being illegal.

These politicians never make simple common sense laws. They always add things such as creating a data base of every American who purchased a gun. In this way they will know who has hunting rifles when they finally get enough Democrats in control to make them illegal.

Do you drink? Do you want a back ground check when you buy a drink in a public place?

PUT YOUR INCONVENIENCE WHERE YOUR HYPOCRITICAL MOUTH IS IS YOU TRULY WANT TO SAVE LIVES OF CHILDREN!

marcusmoon(515) Clarified
1 point

Sean,

Nobody wants to take away the right for a sensible human being to own a gun: (Well, some people do.) someone who is mentally stable, has shown that he can safely use and store his weapon, and makes a point of being law-abiding.

What you are saying is absolutely reasonable. We need to keep guns out of the hands of nutjobs, scoff-laws, addicts, and especially irresponsible dumb-shits.

This issue presents the challenge of balancing freedoms with responsibilities for safety. I think we agree on where the balance might be.

Moreover, it presents the challenge of implementation in the real world. The last to mass shootings revealed inadequate implementation of the restrictions and checks that are already required.

It's about ensuring, as much as is humanly possible, that there is a national sense of responsibility regarding guns.

Why only regarding guns?

If we actually care about safety and responsibility, then we need to develop a national sense of responsibility regarding cars.

We need to prioritize car safety over gun safety for the simple reason the car wreck fatality and injury problem is far greater than that of guns. (Traffic deaths: 37,000 people in 2016, vice gun homicides:11,800 in 2016.)

In addition to all the deaths, paraplegia, quadriplegia, car wrecks cause much higher property damage, and much greater cost in terms of time. One car wreck that backs up major freeway (in LA for example) for two hours could cost an accumulated loss of time equal to an entire lifetime worth of hours. It is like distributing one death over tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

We need to apply the same rules and restrictions you suggest to cars, also.

Certainly it does not have to be one or the other. I think that it makes sense for the "common sense restrictions" to be the same for both cars and guns.

- The same checks, and similar training and testing.

- Any violations of safety requirements (including operating either while intoxicated, using a cell phone while driving, or any threats) or issue regarding mental health (or medications that affect mental function or the ability to operate gun/car safely) should result in loss of of rights/licenses to possess/operate either pending a mandatory review.

If you think it is going too far to apply the same standards to cars as to guns, consider that there is no Constitutional right to any particular mode of transportation.

However, as I said before, the main issue is implementability.

We may do better to focus the implementation on car owners/drivers, since that presents the greater demonstrated risk to public safety.

Thoughts?

If you are going to support the ability for anyone to get a gun without any sensible restrictions whatsoever, then you are as a member of a democracy informed by voters, complicit in the deaths of every child that died as a result of a psycho being able to get himself an auto (semi-automatic rifle or car?) without so much as a mental health exam.

This is an fallacious statement because it states that mere disagreement is tantamount to murder. It is the ultimate ad hominem: equating an opinion/view to a moral failing. There are plenty of sound and moral reasons to disagree:

- Differing values and priorities.

- Differing assessment of the root cause of the problem, or even of what the problem is.

- Differing assessments as to whether the restrictions are able to effect any actual change.

- Differing results of comparative risk assessments for various factors.

- Differing cost-benefit analyses.

- Differing interpretations of Constitutional law.

It is much more useful to address practicality and effectiveness of various solutions.

You are speaking common sense, but i think these people fixated on only one weapon ignore common sense.

They don't want to be inconvenienced when it comes to their pleasures in life..... cars, alcohol, etc., that kill many thousands more people. We have told them these simple truths many times, and they totally ignore it.

It's only the gun they worry about.

It truly is a waste of time trying to debate these people. They lack the simple intellect to get it, or work for the Democrat Party.

seanB(545) Disputed
1 point

It doesn't state that disagreement is tantamount to murder. That's reductive and without context. It states that if you support no-restriction gun sales then you are as a member of a democracy informed by the wishes of the masses complicit in the results of that policy, one of which is kids getting shot up in schools.

It's morally repulsive to support no restrictions on guns, given the results.

You're a moron if you want to compare a car purposes for travel to a weapon purposed for killing.

Drink driving is illegal. Yes, speed limits should be reduced, yes pedestrians should be given right of way, yes cars are dangerous. But this is a debate about guns, things which are expressly designed to cause fatalities. Nobody is plowing a car into a school full of kids.

1 point

Liberals have been programmed to disarm by their Commie masters.

0 points

It's truly amazing how gun control fanatics single out the gun as the only weapon of interest.

I guess they want the killers to be using illegal bombs to do their mass killings.

It's not the weapon! Use your brain and address the real causes for murder.

Battlemage Banned
0 points

HE DOESN'T NEED AN ILLEGAL GUN YOU SILLY CHILD-BEATING PSYCHOPATH.

HE HAS A LEGAL ONE HE BOUGHT AT FUCKING WALMART!

HE DOESN'T NEED TO GO CRAWLING THROUGH THE DARK WEB LOOKING FOR EX-KGB AGENTS BECAUSE HE CAN WALK INTO ANY CANDY STORE, BUY A QUARTER OUNCE OF SHERBET STRAWBERRIES, A PACK OF GUM AND A KALASHNIKOV.

NomsGremlin(81) Disputed
1 point

It's sad that you really don't grasp that the point of "illegal" gun is to point out that you can get a gun regardless of the law. But, you have been a dumbass since day one on here. What did I expect?

0 points

The number of people killed by gun wielding hone invaders is almost zero in the USA. Look it up.

While the number of mass shootings be psychos who should never ever ever been able to get their greasy blood stained crazy ass hands on an assault weapon continues to grow by the dozens every month.

Get a grip....if the founding father's came back today and saw all these mass shooting from Columbine till Lakeland they would rewrite the second amendment in a Philadelphia minute. And you know damn well that's true.

Cheers

OmegaPan(678) Disputed
2 points

While the number of mass shootings be psychos who should never ever ever been able to get their greasy blood stained crazy ass hands on an assault weapon continues to grow by the dozens every month

Firstly, this sounds like a good reason for me to arm up.

Secondly, if you could magically erase all guns, they'd start using more creative methods like bombs. It's a lot easier to sneak a bomb into a crowd than a gun. Don't tempt them.

FromWithin(6483) Disputed
1 point

If the founding fathers came back to see what the Left has done to the right to life of our most innocent babies, they would rewrite the Constitution clearly spelling out the unborn right to life.

Spare us all your pious hypocritical concerns for people killed by guns, when you support the purposeful legal killing hundreds of thousands of innocent babies every year.