CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:13
Arguments:16
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Any person using their brain would ask why kids were not mass killing kids decades ago. (13)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(7683) pic



Any person using their brain would ask why kids were not mass killing kids decades ago.

The problem today with school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with guns, because decades ago there were guns all over the place.
Teens could easily get guns, and our schools were still very safe! WHY? If guns are the problem, why were they not a problem in schools decades ago?

To an intelligent person, the answer is not gun control, but an honest look at this immoral self love culture. These killers are created by broken families, children feeling unloved, insecurities, violent Hollywood movies, etc. etc.
What kind of fool blames the weapon of choice rather than a culture creating these killers.

The Democrat Party's goal has always been about taking our guns, one step at a time, as done in Liberal Europe. This gun control debate has nothing to do with saving lives, because drunk driver background checks in bars would save thousand more lives, and you hear nothing from them when it comes to alcohol.

It's all about taking our guns so a Big controlling Government can control the people.

It's obviously our culture creating these soulless killers because it hardly ever happened before. What changed? Why were mass shootings in school not a problem decades ago?

Stop acting the Left wing Progressive fools, swallowing all this fake news and anti Gun lunacy. Use the brain in your head and try getting to the bottom of this problem so we might actually save the lives of future children.

What's your answer, taking away all guns that hold over 7 rounds of ammo? So you are ok with just seven children being killed? What do you do when the killer uses knives, poison, bombs, trucks, fire? How about addressing the core problem in this immoral self love  culture whereby our children are sacrificed for convenience through No Restriction abortions, or abandoned by parents chasing after greener pastures. Look at the garbage Hollywood puts our for our teens to see, all in the name of money.

We have a moral problem in this nation since God was separated from our public. Try putting two and two together. It's not the gun!

Add New Argument

So if teens start mowing over children in the parking lot at schools, what will you gun control fanatics say? Ban cars?

1 point

The problem today with school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with guns, because decades ago there were guns all over the place.

Teens could easily get guns, and our schools were still very safe!

Except they weren't safe. You just believe they were because you've had no coverage of whatever time you're referring to and it suits your point if they were. The media today covers what happens today because it's more emotionally impactful, so that's all you hear about. I don't blame you for consequently thinking things were better before.

As convenient for you as it would be if it were the fault of hollywood movies, it has already been shown that they have little correlation to real life violence. Rather it seems you're just scapegoating using subjects you disagree with. I'm not sure what you mean by self-love culture though, could you elaborate for me please?

Actually it's a good thing you mention cars, because the sentiment is the same. Taking the case of cars, many people die all the time from road accidents and misuse. Accidents and misuse alone do not cause casualties however, it's the combination with the lethal nature of a speeding 1-2 ton object that results in fatalities. As a result, many restrictions have already been put in place on the operation of cars. Perhaps they sound familiar.

You need to pass a theory test requiring a 95% success rate alongside a practical test with no tolerance for any significant mistakes, despite the chance based nature of accidents, all to obtain a licence. You cannot be significantly intoxicated while using cars. Speed limits are imposed to limit both the probability and potential lethality of accidents. A series of rules are in place that try to ensure that the car is being used properly and maintained such as to limit accidents. All the regulation over cars has helped lessen the death toll in a society where everyone owns and uses a car, but it's still not enough, with self-driving cars being a comparably ideal solution; removing the human from the situation.

You can draw parallels to gun licences, weapon type restrictions and an overall gun ban.

We put up with the exorbitant death toll from car accidents because of the importance they hold in our lives, but even driving looks to be coming to an end, where non-recreational driving will likely become illegal. Guns hold no such importance in our lives, I don't see why the deaths they enable should be accepted. Even if I supposed you're right that our culture develops killers in a way never seen before, it's easier to remove the guns than change the culture. Removing the guns results in less lethal means for these supposed killers to be able to kill with, leaving knives, bats and fists. Just like how removing human driven cars leaves bicycles and pedestrians.

Also, you've only been arguing against gun homicides. There's also suicide and accidents via guns which poses a significant problem as well and actually double the death count of gun homicides. Even ignoring homicide altogether, you can make an argument to ban guns to reduce overall deaths in the US.

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

Stop being a deceptive loser swallowing what fake news tells you.

I WENT TO SCHOOL 50 YEARS AGO AND GUESS WHAT? There were no mass shootings in school. We had TV and we had the news telling us about such things if they were happening. It's not the gun!

Just because smug arrogant people like yourself think you have the right to decide if a gun is important to others who want to protect their families, does not give you the right to decide what's important to me and millions of Americans who believe our gun rights are VERY IMPORTANT!

Back ground checks for repeat drunk drivers would save far more lives than your ludicrous gun restrictions. It's not the car, it's the alcohol consumed by people who have no caring for those they might kill on the road. Back ground checks on these repeat DWI drivers before they buy that alcohol would save many lives, but of course you don't want to be inconvenienced when it comes to things you like.

Lives only matter to people like you as long as you are not the one being inconvenienced.

Nomoturtle(716) Disputed
1 point

Stop being a deceptive loser swallowing what fake news tells you.

You consider wikipedia to be fake news? Also I've been arguing against guns for years now, I didn't just pop up after recent mass shootings.

The majority of people in schools don't experience mass shootings personally. Arguing from an individual basis is useless. Perhaps you didn't hear about mass shootings as a kid, but that link shows that they happened. The US has grown by 50% and shootings have gone up proportionally.

It's not the gun!

It is partially the gun. If the gun is removed then eventually criminals have to resort to less lethal means to kill. Accidents involving guns simply won't happen at all. Attempting suicide will become less successful. Crime, suicide and accidents will still occur, but deaths resulting from them will be less frequent. Countries that employ gun bans show a period of increased crime-related deaths followed by a long term decrease in deaths. The net benefit is obvious.

Back ground checks for repeat drunk drivers would save far more lives than your ludicrous gun restrictions.

I can't tell whether you've grasped it since you've not addressed it, but my point was that restrictions on car usage that limit the severity of accidents has dampened the death toll they cause. Also, yes, you're probably right about saving more lives with further driving restrictions than further gun restrictions, but they're not mutually exclusive. We can have both!

you don't want to be inconvenienced when it comes to things you like.

Except I neither drink nor drive, but cars are essential for most people in our current state for work and transport. Your gun sees less use than your car, and when it is used, it's to either kill or threaten. This actually describes your position. You like guns, or at least think the right to own guns is important therefore you ignore the deaths they cause. I'm not talking about just homicides, but accidents and suicides too. I won't condemn you for that, but it's something that should be addressed by the us as a whole. It's also something you flat out ignored in my previous post.

Lives only matter to people like you as long as you are not the one being inconvenienced.

Even after a gun ban you could still play with them recreationally in certain areas. Having them as a means for defence is not a viable solution, as can be seen in other countries.

Just wondering, let's say hypothetically a new more deadly weapon is created. For example, a device where you input a profile and the person is killed. Should this device be available for anyone to purchase?

Parents today when their kids are depressed “it’s that darn smartphone.” Us kids “no, its you parents repeatedly fucking up our world.”