CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws?
Loads of debate raging after the mass killings in the past few months
on one side are those who want to ban autmatics and semi - automatic assault style weapons that fire multiple bullets per minute...some also want to tighten the application process for gun licenses
on the other side many americans point to the second amendment and claim it entitles them to buy and use and weapons they like
then theres some in the middle of the road who believe in the second amendment right to bear arms but simply think the 200 bullets per minute assault weapons should be banned and only available to soldiers
the crime figures are interesting
obviously gun murders in america are way higher per head than any developed nation in the world (11000 ddeaths compared to european nations who average around 40 per year in total)
but pro gun people point that other crime stats are often higher in some of these other nations, such as robberies , common assaults, etc
I doubt the founding fathers who wrote the 2nd amendment were thinking about the kind of guns we'd have in 2013. It's time to update the Constitution to clarify what the 2nd amendment means today.
I am sure when the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment they didn't think about the possibility of the Internet and how much hate speech could end up on it. It's time to update the Constitution to clarify what the 1st amendment means today.
If the first amendment is outdated that is your opinion. The point if the first amendment is that you can't be punished for anything you express because it doesn't harm anyone, I could say the most racist hateful bigotted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone. They didn't predict the internet and if that changed thing where free speech could physically hurt someone or negatively affect someone with the exception of them getting their feelings hurt then how is the first amendment outdated.
This can be comparing apples to oranges depending on the argument as to why the first amendment needs to be revised and the 2nd amendment.
You shouldn't be punished for owning a gun because owning a gun doesn't harm anyone. I could own a hundred assault riffles and people around me would still be safe. How does it hurt anyone what I own? Except for the fact that people who are for gun control get their panties in a bunch ;)
you shouldn't be punished for owning a gun cause owning a gun doesn't harm anyone
How do you define punishment? By this sentence you and me have different defenitions of punishment it seems.
I could own a hundred assault rifles and people around me would still be safe.
Not necessarily if you have no safety training. Or are a criminal/psychopath who bought their guns from a gun show.
how does it hurt anyone what I own
It doesn't necessarily, whether or not anyone who is able to purchase guns are fucked up in the head or a hardcore criminal or untrained with access to higher grade weapons do.
how is the 2nd amendment outdated?
Because guns back then are not nearly as powerful as they are now, also you could legalize every gun in the world it will make practically no difference against tanks, soldiers, and military style aircraft.
Punishment is when I can't have something because someone else screwed it up for everyone else. Why don't we just punish the criminals? That's the real problem. The problem is not people owning assault riffles. The problem is crazy people. Figure out how to identify the crazies and keep them from owning guns.
As far as tanks and military aircraft..., how long have we been fighting radicals in both Iraq and Afghanistan? And all they have are guns. I find a totalitarian government more dangerous than few sick bastards blowing away a couple of dozen people each year.
punishment is when I can't have something because somebody else screwed it up for everyone else.
Hey sometimes that is what's fair and is what is necessary. I'm not for banning guns so through my point of view as long as you haven't assaulted or murdered someone and have a healthy psyche go ahead buy a gun, it might make things more of a pain in the ass but its worth keeping guns in the hands of the innocents and less off the street.
why don't we just punish the criminals? That's the real problem.
To be able to capture every criminal and take them off the streets, litterally every single one, would probably cost a lot of tax dollars, more so than some gun regulation. Otherwise they wouldn't be a problem now would they? Also It's not just a criminal problem but a mental health one as well.
the problem is not owning assault rifles. The problem is crazy people.
That is what gun regulation is for, psyche evaluations are a form of gun regulation.
As far as tanks and military aircraft..., how long have we been fighting radicals in both Iraq and Afghanistan? And all they have are guns.
Yes but this is because us genius 'MERICANS have figured out that we are in the wrong here in that fight thus we have no goal of taking them over oranything, just soldiers stuck in a pointless war of self defence that we wrongfully started.
What do you mean we were wrong? We needed to test our new weapons and what better place to do it in? I mean..., those people are very generous to let us practice on them :)
The second amendment being outdated is an opinion as well, I guess that makes that line of thinking bad as well. Why don't don't you tell the family of people who have killed themselves because people made fun of them on the internet that the 1st amendment does no harm.
There you go, we have no idea if the 1st amendment should allow cyber bullying. The wording of the first amendment says that some forms of cyber bullying are ok, doesn't that mean we need to update the 1st amendment to account for new technology?
If that is the case then yes it does. The 1st amendment is outdated and should be improved upon. I whole heartedly agree. Of course this depends on the defenition of cyber bullying.
Our amendments were created to be amended when need be, that is the American way. The point of our government is to socially adapt. The illegalization of alcohol was probably written for a reason and considered "timeless" and it got practically removed. If the 1st amendment allows people to bully others online to the point of suicide then perhaps it needs to be rewritten a little bit differently to not allow such behavior. Give me a rational, reasonable, logical refutation against my argument other than accusing me of being on drugs, calling the amendment "timeless", and created for a reason. Of course it's created for reason obviously I'm not saying we should write it out just update it, and timeless is an emotional appeal.
I could say the most racist hateful bigoted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone. The is no reason to update the 1st amendment because people can't get hurt with words. The 18th amendment was passed in the 20th century, so no it was not timeless. The 18th amendment came about because people couldn't mind there own business and had to control what other people could have, sound familiar. It didn't work out so well did it?
I could say the most racist, hateful, bigoted crap on the internet. How does it hurt anyone? There is no reason to update the first amendment because people can't be hurt with words.
If people however are bullying someone online with direct insults intentionally meant to make the person feel Shitier and they can't do anything about it then I do think it should be updated.
The 18th amendment was passed in the 20th century, so no it is not timeless
What is your definition of timeless?
the 18th amendment came about because people couldn't mind their own business and had to control what other people could have, sound familiar? It didn't work out so well did it?
Sounds awfully biased if you ask me. The point I'm trying to make is whether or not something is an amendment doesn't make a good argument to be preserved. If your disagreement of the 18th amendment justifies it's ratification, but on the hypothetical situation that the 1st amendment allows people to bully someone online where the bullied can't do anything about it might have me have a slight disagreement with it, doesn't justify my opinion it needs to be updated slightly? Also we restrict people from any freedoms, murder can be seen as a "freedom" and illegalizing that has done more good then bad in my honest opinion. The argument that I am taking away your freedom doesn't make a good logic, you need to justify that freedom if I accuse it of intruding on another freedom (where in this case the freedom being intruded on is the freedom to live your life without people harrassing you with hurtful words.)
Woah, woah, woah, now you want to add an amendment to allow murder? Man you are heartless. I seriously hope the country doesn't listen to the opinions of someone crazy enough to defend the murder amendment.
Well since you want to use my own words against me in a dishonest way, and have nothing else to contribute then that tells me I won the argument :). I am done here, unless you want to debate honestly I will ignore you now. applauds
I got you to go against your original argument and then try to claim that murder has a possibility of being a freedom, I won. You argued against the exact same words you used before, you lose.
Really? You failed to use my argument against me. You were using my argument that the 1st amendment shouldn't be touched before the hypothetical situation of the first amendment allowing harassment against my argument after the hypothetical situation that the 1st amendment allows harrasment...
Yes murder can be considered a "freedom" to some though most don't, the point is anything can, I'm trying to point out you can't compare the freedom of harassing people to the freedom of simply drinking alcohol where appropriate.
That was when we were arguing just the 1st amendment, now we are arguing the amendment under the hypothetical situation that it allows harassment. It doesn't apply.
This is a debate about the 2nd amendment and you are completely off topic, clearly I have beaten you so bad you can't think straight. We can create laws to not allow harassment without breaking the freedoms set forth in the 1st amendment, there is no need to update it, just like there is no need to change the 2nd amendment. Maybe we should make it illegal to commit a crime with a gun.
Thank you for not continuing your crazy stance on freedom to murder, it made you sound like a lunatic.
Oh I'm the only one who's off topic? XD. I don't want to change the 1st amendment at all because as far as I can tell it doesn't allow the harrassment I am talking about, this was all hypothetical. If we can create laws against harassment without affecting the 1st amendment, ewe can create laws regulating guns without affecting the 2nd amendment. Making it illegal to commit a crime with a gun isn't going to solve anything, it already is. The point I was trying to make to you is that the amendments are there to be adapted when need be, I honestly agree the 2nd amendment should be revised for today's guns. The 1st amendment isn't causing any problems. You are so delusional, you already are shown to have tried to twist my words against and yet you still think you win, I'm sorry if I'm winning I wouldn't need to play dirty tricks at all. Fine ill say you win, ill grant you that satisfaction your delusional mind wants and let the actions speak for themselves.
Can you give an example for how you have demonstrated that you are more qualified than the founding fathers to make these decisions? Can you give an example for anyone alive today who has spent the time and effort to really think about what it means to change one of the fundamental principles that the country was founded upon? Should we really be making gut decisions about what rights millions of people are allowed to have?
By the way, I played no such dirty tricks, it only seems like that because you lost.
We can't ask the founding fathers whether or not it is outdated can we? I'm not necessarily more qualified, if they were still around today they could agree or disagree with me as times now are than different back then. The founding fathers made the amendments to be adapted when need be, that's why they are called "amendments" to amend something means to change, therefore the amendments are supposed to be changing through out history, the reason the amendments by the founding fathers have gone so long untouched is because there brilliance in creating them, but sooner or later times are going to change so much that some amendments won't even apply anymore. Like the day weapons more advanced then guns comes along and replaces them will make the 2nd amendment completely superfluous. Sooner or later thos. If amendments won't apply effectively. If the founding fathers really thought that the people of the u.s. years after there death weren't qualified to update their amendments, why make them amendments? Why not put it under a section that says "founding father's untouchable rules".
The answer was no. Don't write blah blah blah, I won't even come close to addressing your question blah blah blah. What we do in this life echoes an eternity. We should really consider the consequences of our actions. You demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge required to change a fundamental right set forth by the people who founded this country who actually had a vision of what makes a good country to live in. I know you wouldn't be the one responsible for the changes, but no one has demonstrated that they possess the qualifications that might be needed to make those changes.
That was my answer but my explanation was to your implied argument that came with your question. Unless you weren't implying anything which as someone as dishonest as you would be leaving you without an actual point being made yet. Go ahead make your actual point unless I am right about yur implied argument then I am waiting for you to actually refute my refutation to your implied argument.
don't write blah blah blah, I won't even come close to addressing your question blah blah blah.
Gosh you're such a genius debater completely disregarding my argument and with absolutely no effort of refuting, I kind of doubt you even read it. Learn how to debate noob... I wasn't as bad as you when I started but you're going to get your ass beaten when trying to debate with others on here.
what we do in life echoes an eternity. We should really consider the consequences of our actions.
These are such good points against me man, accussing me of being irresponsible without logic as to why applaudes congratulations, I guess you got me checkmated good sir.
you demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge required to change a fundamental right.
What right do I want to take away? I wasn't aware that I wanted to take someone's rights away... Man the things you learn about yourself that apparently only other people know. I smell a strawman comin
I know you wouldn't be responsible for the changes, but no one has demonstrated that they possess the qualifications that might be needed to make those changes.
These are such good points against me man, accussing me of being irresponsible without logic as to why applaudes congratulations, I guess you got me checkmated good sir.
You were responding to statements that were not directed at you in any way, they are rules we should live by. I am trying to stress the importance of thinking about these things not attacking you. But obviously you refuse to think or read (now I am attacking you).
What right do I want to take away?
You want to take away part of our 2nd amendment rights. If you wanted to update the 2nd amendment to give us more rights that's news to me. Do you not even know what it is that you are proposing when you say we should change the 2nd amendment? And, I didn't even say you wanted to take away rights, I was accusing you of not being qualified to CHANGE the 2nd amendment. It says it right in the bolded text you quoted, nice reading comprehension. If we do change the 2nd amendment, which would be a terrible idea, I certainly hope the people involved can read unlike yourself.
How do you figure that?
I have not observed anything to the contrary. You can't even address it which leads me to think I am even more correct.
completely disregarding my argument and with absolutely no effort of refuting
Well, the pot just called the kettle black I see. The argument that we can't tell what the Founding Fathers would do nowadays, so let's hack up the constitution is ridiculous for 2 reasons. 1) The Founding Fathers left us an entire constitution with all of their beliefs in it and 2) Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean let's rip it apart.
That's what people do on here when responding to each other, I don't as much cause I only have my phone do all this on which doesn't allow me to copy and past making it very tedious thus only if the argument is short, I'm responding to one or two sentences, then I feel up to it.
People having to think about their consequences is a given, when you saythat to me I assume that you think I don't know that.
About the whome change/take away thing my bad I guess I read that wrong, I'm willing to admit when I am wrong.
You are the one claiming people aren't qualified. What is your defenition of qualified? What do you mean when you say people aren't qualified?
The founding fathers did put all of their beliefs in the constitution, and all their knowledge. And I don't disagree with them, at that time I think having guns were much more justified. However their knowledge about guns is less when it comes to present day is less than the common person's knowledge now, because guns technology has advanced quite a bit since then. They also had the beliefs that the beliefs of the constitution should be improved upon when need be, are you against that belief of theirs?
You accused me of not responding to your arguments and then you totally ignored my arguments. I need to know why it is so important that the types of guns have changed. We have rules in place to protect us, why should we throw that all away?
There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers believed that the rights that they gave us should be taken away. There is a system to add amendments which are supposed to give us more rights not less. How many amendments have been modified after being accepted?
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
When they wrote this, they had no idea what guns would become making gun regulation complicated. Those against the regulation of guns argue that the right to bear arms says that it shall not be infringed upon, but we have no reason to think the founding fathers wouldn't have tooken inconsideration some of the unnecessarily powerful guns for the public, and we can't bring them back to life. If the founding fathers didn't want it to ever be a possibility that the bill of rights be updated, why make them as amendable as the future amendments that came?
The Founding Fathers only intended for extra rights to be added to the constitution through the amendment process, and since updating the 2nd amendment would remove rights the Founding Fathers would be against it.
I guess about as much as you have that their stance would be different :) We do know that they were very much against losing rights, so it is likely that they would be against changing their stance. Your position is supported by zero evidence, and you cling to some kind of hope that they would believe something that they have said they do not believe in. I wish you luck in convincing the Founding Fathers to change their beliefs, you will need it.
Remember you were the one who first claimed what the founding fathers would think as your argument, I don't necessarily believe one way or the other, but was arguing the other assertion to get you to realize your assertion was just an assertion. I succeeded. What rights do I want to take away? I thought we have been over this...
I don't know what they'd think but I do know they had no idea what to expect from guns nowadays.
I think you need to correct a few statements. A) I was not the first person to claim something about Founding Fathers. B) You don't know anything.
Maybe you should learn to read before even attempting to assert anything about what the Founding Fathers were thinking.
I am glad you have stopped your silly position of taking away rights and replacing it with the freedom to murder, this is a much better position for you to defend.
Correction: I did not say you were the first to claim SOMETHING about the founding fathers, I said you were the first to claim what the founding fathers stance on gun politics nowadays would be.
I don't know anything?
Good debating skills... I have no idea to argue against that point... Lol
When did I ever want to take away anyone's rights? Can you explain that to me? When did I want to allow murder? Can you explain that to me? I'll be happy to clarify for you, what you can't understand through common sense.
You haven't clarified a single thing. Why don't you clarify why you are such an idiot. All you have done is gone back on your own beliefs. You have the worst debating skills, you pick a side, change sides, then get mad because people remember you chose the first side. Then your go to move, tell the other guy, who is clearing beating you very badly, that he has bad debating skills.
I hope you don't ever get accused of killing anyone because this whole murder freedom that you keep pushing might get you in trouble.
By the way, my very first argument that the Founding Fathers would not know about the internet was in response to HoldTheMayo's stupid assertion that the second amendment should be modified. You then came in and pointed out that my statement was stupid, which PROVED my point. You lost this debate in your very first argument, congratulations on losing so bad.
I said I'd be happy to clarify for you, not that I did...
No we argued over 3 different things, of which all my stances on haven't changed. I'm not mad but I find it funny how you like to try to turn everything back on me dishonestly.
Again when did I want to allow murder?
What you said about the first amendment about the founding fathers was not what I was talking about. Just because holdthemayo thought that the 2nd amendment needed to be modified doesn't mean he thinks the same thing about the 2nd amendment. The point I was trying to make is just because someone thinks that perhaps the 2nd amendment needs to be modified doesn't necessarily mean It's hypocritical to not think the same thing about the 1st amendment.
It is however hypocritical to brush off the fact that the Founding Fathers wouldn't know how life would have changed with respect to the 1st amendment and then argue that life has changed so the 2nd amendment is affected. I pointed out what was wrong with the idiotic line of thought that you share, and you proved me right, thank you.
I asked you several times for clarification earlier and you provided nothing, and said stuff that was stupid like your stance on murder. Instead of trying to add to the discussion you tried to take away from it.
You said murder could be considered a freedom, which was by far the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time, and I keep bringing it up to show how stupid you are as a debater.
You said you were against changing the 1st amendment, then you said you for changing the first amendment, then you said you were against changing the first amendment. Was that the 3 different arguments you were referring to?
So, please put down the crack pipe or the bong or whatever drugs you are on and just admit defeat.
1st paragraph: yes but both of the stances on modifying either of them of requires a different multitude of arguments.
2nd paragraph: like what? Still accusing me of wanting to illegalize murder... sigh you are hopeless. I was trying to point out ANYTHING can be considered a freedom good grief... If you think it was so stupid then make a freaking point about it already instead of calling me an idiot for it over and over that is how a person with a below average IQ debates rather than annoying the hell out of someone ... If you just take 5 seconds to google it the defenition will say it is the power or right to act... You can be FREE to murder someone merely by having the power to do as such...
The 3 different arguments
1st amendment
1st amendment allowing harrassment online
If you push that limit far enough authorities WILL do something, if someone keeps attacking people on facebook you can block them, if someone threatens you online, you can call the police on them. Any other defenition of cyber bullying I don't want to try to illegalize. Most cyber bullying that causes that are preventable. The 1st amendment hasn't gone outdated... The 2nd amendment has a bit. Where have you been seeing recent bursts of group suicides equal to the massacres that blew up the news?
I am going to try a new technique, I will debate like you, so if I sound like an idiot it is your fault. What do you have to say about this:
No one has ever been hurt because someone owned a gun which is what the 2nd amendment specifies. People only get hurt by a gun when it is used, which is not protected under the 2nd amendment. Therefore, there is no reason to update the 2nd amendment.
I said I'd be happy to clarify for you, not that I did...
No we argued over 3 different things, of which all my stances on haven't changed. I'm not mad but I find it funny how you like to try to turn everything back on me dishonestly.
Again when did I want to allow murder?
What you said about the first amendment about the founding fathers was not what I was talking about. Just because holdthemayo thought that the 2nd amendment needed to be modified doesn't mean he thinks the same thing about the 2nd amendment. The point I was trying to make is just because someone thinks that perhaps the 2nd amendment needs to be modified doesn't necessarily mean It's hypocritical to not think the same thing about the 1st amendment.
I think that the guns we have now and how they could possibly be utilized were not expected in the 1700's-1850's. Nobody really thought of commiting mass crimes or shooting random citizens or any other possible examples when the 2nd amendment was passed. Typically guns back then were naturally going to be used for protection as they still are now, but in the 21st century we are finding an increase of gun abuse and horrible cases in which guns were used in an uncivilized fashion. I think they should be slightly tightened to begin avoidance of any future occurences, besides protection, that envoke violence or terror among the common people.
Nah, we should though create bots to run our cars for us and give themselves maintenance checks so it should eliminate accidents, DUI's, deaths via automobile accidents and what not.
However, I'm not so sure I would want skyNET/bots taking over the world.
And so quite frankly it comes down to a matter that perhaps people should do more training, older people whom can't see shouldn't drive, stuff like that. Changing the people would help this situation a ton.
we ban dangerous drivers and dangerous cars , everyone needs lessons galore and expensive licenses and expensive car tests and mechanics bills...they get tested regularly and vigorously, especially commercial vehicles.
id also add vehicles add more to our quality of life , theyre not purposely built to destroy and kill...they also save lives galore such as ambulances, fire engines, taxis and regular cars can be used to escort people to hospital or women to maternity wards etc
What the hell do you need a gun for? Don't give me that crap about hunting... this is a civilized world, go get educated, go get a job, get some money, and go to Costco. Don't give me that crap about self-defence. How many cases of mugging would you encounter in a year? If its more than 2... go get educated, get a job, get some money, move to a better place. How often do we face home-invasions? And how often would we actually have time to snap into response and draw our guns before we are held at gunpoint (if we don't deal with autoarms professionally as a soldier or cop). Get educated, and get rich, and get a bodyguard.
Sure, relieving stress seems justified, but then, confine your gun to the gun range! You don't need it unless you work in an environment where you could get killed on a daily basis. Guns give us a false sense of bravado when in truth we could do just as well without it. The era for guns has long passed, just as the era for carrying swords and crossbows passed before it. Get with the program.
In shorrt, get an education and get out of debt. then u probs wont need guns. Cheers.
100% agree.....11500 americans are killed every year and 50000+ more and injured simply to allow everyone to buy as many weapons as they like for a hypothetical scenario that has a less than 1 in ten million chace of hapening and even if it did happen, the likelihood is that a gun wont save you anyways...the facts prove gun owners are 10 times more likely to be shot in their lives than non gun owners....though my major concern is assault wepaons
If they're you're homes and you don't burn anyone elses property in the process, burn all the homes you like. When you start burning other peoples stuff we have a problem. Like you should be allowed to own a firearm but using it to shoot someone should be illegal... kinda like how it is now.
Oh yeah, and I need access to a blow torch for my happiness to be complete.
Anyway. Nice strawman. Banning automatic guns isn't banning all guns nor tightening gun laws. You are addressing the Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws? question in answer to my response to Joe, which was not the Ban automatic guns? tighten gun laws? subject.
It was pointing out a fallacy in his logic.
If I said spaghetti was better than eggplant Parmesan would you answer that you should still be allowed to plug in your toaster and quit trampling on your toaster rights?
To the gun question, here's that argument.
We don't let people have nuclear bombs. Sure, a responsible person could have a nuclear bomb and not hurt people, but why take that chance? We determine it is not worth the risk.
It is perfectly acceptable to look at some guns and some gun laws and make rational decisions as to whether some are worth the risk.
I argue they are not. Stats show conclusively smart regulation works. I think that is more important than whether someone wants to pretend they are defending against invisible black helicopters with their automatic gun arsenal.
I also find it is those most vehement that they absolutely must have all of this firepower who are the least mentally stable and should not be allowed them.
I don't really see how my post was a strawman; I wasn't even addressing the subject, just your post. If I wanted to tie what I wrote to banning automatic weapons or tightening gun laws I would've done that. But I didn't do that.
You might have been pointing out or trying to point out his faulty logic; I was pointing out that you were not comparing like with like. Joe was talking about simply owning an object. You compared that to (presumably) maliciously and deliberately destroying the property of others. It was just such an incredibly unfair comparison I felt the need to point it out. I think a better comparison would be cars or knives, perhaps.
On the individual level do nuclear bombs have any purpose other than unquantifiable levels of destruction? You're either not using the nuke or you're using it to blow up several square miles and that's really all you can do with a nuke. Guns can be used and are regularly used for hunting, entertainment, and self-defense. That makes guns at least about as practically useful as cars or knives and hugely more practically useful (and less destructive) than a nuclear bomb. I think you're making another unfair comparison. Like:
We don't let people have cars. Sure, a responsible person could have a car and not hurt people, but why take that chance? We determine it is not worth the risk.
Except for we do let people have cars (it's a regulated process, like firearms) even though they kill loads of people ever year. When you compare like with like you're point seems to have less impact.
It is perfectly acceptable to look at some guns and some gun laws and make rational decisions as to whether some are worth the risk.
Cool, that's about where I'm at with gun restrictions, too.
I argue they are not. Stats show conclusively smart regulation works.
I assume you're talking specifically about automatic guns, again? If you are I agree. Really the gist of my post was pointing out that owning a piece of property and going around destroying other peoples property are not the same thing at all. One is the simple act of owing a weapon, the other implies malicious intent to destroy, which is both not the same thing at all and very unfair because the connotation is all gun owners are malicious destroyers.
I also find it is those most vehement that they absolutely must have all of this firepower who are the least mentally stable and should not be allowed them.
And the most, because they know they can handle it. My roommate for example is a highly intelligent, self-made successful, reserved, modest, driven, educated (and for all intents and purposes mentally stable) city boy with a family history of military service and extensive experience and interest in firearms. He takes owning, handling, and using his guns (he has several) very seriously and he takes proper care always as the result of his proper training. A lot of my gun-owning family members are very similar to this. I know many people like this besides him. Maybe it's just where I'm living but I know more stable, safe gun owners than not. In fact I can only think of two bad gun owners off tops. And it seems to me with all the gun owners in this country if people were really all that mentally unstable and paranoid there would be a lot more death than what we have now. But what we have now is the vast majority of gun owners chillin with their weapons, not shooting up invisible helicopters or - god forbid - schools. So again it seems incredibly unfair of you (unless you have some tangible statistics on the general mental stability and paranoia of gun owners - which very well might exist) to generalize people who own firearms as nutjobs defending against paranoid hallucinations because they're all so horribly mentally unstable.
I want an automatic weapon with a big gun clip to pursue my happiness..., which is one of my unalienable rights ;)
If it makes me happy to own those things, who are you to tell me I can't have them? You are not the boss of me ;)
This was the argument I was answering. So from there, your reply to me created a strawman and was not addressing the same subject as me or what joe originally said.
His premise was the pursuit of happiness and only the pursuit of happiness. My reply used the exact same logic.
I feel I can jump into a debate two people are having and respond to any given point without also being obligated to address everything said before that point. That just sounds incredibly arderous, so I have no intent to start now.
A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of someone elses argument that then presumably goes on to get attacked. You're entire explanation of why my post was a straw man is essentially that it is off topic ("was not addressing the same subject as me or what joe originally said."); being off topic doesn't make an argument a strawman, it makes it off topic. As for it not being on topic, well, it addressed the point you made, referenced the point joe made, and then explained why joe's argument worked and why yours didn't. If that's not on topic I don't know what is.
His premise was the pursuit of happiness and only the pursuit of happiness. My reply used the exact same logic.
Yes, but his example didn't infringe on the happiness of others and yours did, which is why it was an unfair comparison and that's why I felt compelled to say something along those lines. He's talking about property he can own that would make him happy; you are talking about destroying the property of other people to make you happy. A.) those are not the same thing at all and a completely pointless comparison and b.) using the premise of the pursuit of happiness your example also fails because it relies on impacting the happiness of others for your own happiness while joes example only impacts joes happiness. So yes, you used the same logic, but that logic your argument holds no water and his does.
Me owning assault weapons does not impact you in any way shape or form.
I don't know that. You might be a psycho and you might shoot me. Obviously all of the recent shootings, their right to own a gun didn't affect anyone, until it did.
My question would be, if your happiness is dependent on having all of that fire power, are you mentally stable enough to own all of that fire power?
The longer this gun debate drags on the more I'm finding that gun nuts really are nuts. It could almost be a litmus test: "Do you believe that your happiness depends on having an assault rifle and/or that any regulation at all is a plot by the government to punish you for some reason?"
If they answer anything but "that's fucking stupid" they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun.
No more or less rational than laws against stocking biological weapons, creating nuclear bombs, building meth labs, etc.
No more or less rationale than wanting to do any of that.
We draw lines all of the time. Why stop the right to arm oneself at semi-automatics? Why not let people build nuclear bombs joe?
It's the same thing. Some people just have a hard-on for these particular weapons for some reason.
There is nothing any law abiding citizen could ever need a gun that fires that many bullets that fast. At the same time we see almost every month it seems now, that you gun nuts are incapable of keeping your guns out of the hands of even nuttier individuals.
So too bad. You're all in time out. No guns for you until you learn how to play responsibly.
If your out setting homes on fire, then you are intentionally harming others, and your point is invalid. You obviously do not have the mental acuity to handle fire, therefore should we make all fires illegal?
Okay. I want to build a nuclear bomb in my basement. For protection. And say I'm a nuclear scientist.
It's the same argument. As this debate clearly shows, anti gun regulation is based on imagination. Well I imagine I need a nuclear bomb to defend myself.
Never mind that as with guns, you are more likely to hurt yourself of a loved on on accident, you are in fact more likely to have it stolen and used by a psycho in some kind of crime, then ever using it to defend yourself. I imagine I'm Rambo and it makes me feel like a tough guy or whatever.
Better gun control including limiting fire power and doing real background checks means less innocent people, and innocent kids, being shot. That's a fact.
But you don't care. You are in imagination land and think you're Rambo.
The 2nd amendment wasn't designed to protect the rights of hunters, it was enacted so that people could protect themselves from a tyrannical government. It was created to ensure that the people would be able to maintain the freedoms represented by the constitution. Simply put, the rights of the constitution are those deemed inalienable, and the second amendment is there to insure they remain such. How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
How is a gun more useful.than knives? I've never seen people cut up vegetables properly with a machine gun. The difference is knives are a tool, a domestic neccesity, along with tools such as screwdrivers and domestic appliances such as toasters all of which can kill under accidental circumstances, however their benefit outweights the possible issues.
A firearm is not useful like this, the only use for a firearm outside hunting or recreation is security, which a simple handgun would do. You don't need 100 automatic weapons to fend off a likely unarmed intruder, often a bat or long armed weapon would be a much more appropriate weapon. You don't stop a fire by throwing fuel onto it.
If its for recreation then keep it at the range and if its hunting a simple bolt action rifle is sufficient, you don't need military grade weapons.
Handguns should be limited as well, just as they are here, and we no longer need a militia as we have an army and a reserve force which is the modern equivalent. That law was for a fledgling nation still trying to sort itself out.
Yes, we have an illegal standing army, and this is your reason for not needing assault weapons - weapons which cause a miniscule portion of the death in our society.
The law was created to stop tyranny - The founding fathers feared 2 things more than anything else - large financial institutions and standing armies.
We have one controlling our government and the other defending it, and your solution is to remove the possibility of a state controlled, citizen militia.
Genius. Read Federalist #45 when you have a moment. Madison makes fun of you in it, and I'd hate for you to miss that.
There is no state militia, and against the US army, airforce and navy you have zero chance of winning, plus simple militias are not acceptable for defending the juicy pig that is the US. Every time the US got into hot water it had to recruit a standing army and basically go through the process of rearmament which would not work in todays society where wars can be over quickly or cause huge loss of life easily.
Also to humor the prospect of the NEED for assault rifles simply because of tryanny lets put it this way, they say assault rifles make up only 2-3% of homocides, now between 1960 and 2011 there were approximately 908,000 homicides, which means that about 18,100 people were killed by those assault rifles, almost 1 per day. So each day a person must die for the paranoia of tyranny. To me there is nothing more tyrranous than that.
The Korean nationals who used assault weapons to defend themselves and their places of business during the L.A. Riots would disagree with you. Many of the looters had small arms, and the only reason that the livelihoods of the Koreans were not destroyed, their businesses turned into burning ruins, like so many others during this time, was because they had the means to defend themselves and their property.
And once again why did the looters have small arms? - because there are many in circulation. Plus those riots were between citizens, it wasnt the government trying to attack, it was citizens on other citizens. Given any opportunity people will group with their people and not help anyone else, as seen in those riots where the attacks on the koreans were mainly by african americans.
Next, alot of the weapons the koreans used were improvised, shotguns or small arms, only a few had heavier weaponry.
Thirdly that riot was not quelled by civilians valiantly using their weapons weapons in vigilante justice, but rather by the National Guard and the Marines.
Fourthly if the koreans were so amazing at defending themselves then why did they account for almost half of the property damage?
Finally, when you line this up with other countries that have significant laws you see a huge difference, in the L.A riots over 2000 were injured and 56 killed, in for example the Australian race riots there were less than 50 injuries
Automatic guns have no purpose in a civilised society. They were made for war and killing. People outside of war should'nt have access to guns that can shoot 30 bullets in a few seconds and kill so many people. The ammendment was written when a gun was a musket that took 5 minutes to reload and was created in case England tried to invade. USA is one of the most powerful countries in modern age so i doubt that will happen soon. Automatic guns asre wrong in this kind of society. Sure not everyone will kill someone, but one person who decides they wll can kill 30 school children in seconds. Is it worth the risk? No.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.
Actually, the United States is not as bad as you think. The World Health Organization did a recent study on gun murder per 100,000 people. The US is at 4.3. Though this is higher than other countries, there are many civilized countries with higher ones. Russia, 10.2; N. Korea 15.2 (they have the most restrictive laws period); Greenland, 19.2; Puerto Rico, 26.2; Jamaica, 52.2; and Honduras with the highest at 91.6. All of these countries are considered civilized and not 3rd World, and every single one of them (other than the US) have banned weapons. Coincidence? I think not. Also, Automatics and Assault Weapons are already banned. The reason many are giving for banning these weapons is because of stupid exterior options, like grips and larger mags. Like a hand grip under the forearm is going to make it more deadly. And banning larger clips won't help anything. The criminal will be obliged to bring more mags. The only reason people are attacking it is because they have been for many years and have used this tragedy to their advantage. They want to give the government even more power, which it has too much already. There is no evidence to support banning extended mags and grips. The only reason they are being banned is because of them being "scary looking".
in fairness the last 4 or 5 mass killings of children and adults have been carried out with thesde military style assault weapons that fire multiple bullets (up to 100 per minute)
Actually, the guy in Sandy Hook used 4 pistols. An AR-15 was in his car, but never used, and even that has some controversy on whether it actually was an AR-15.
And the mass media has made a point of pushing that, even going as far as linking these weapons to events were they weren't used. So now we have crazies out there, who, thanks to exploitation by the media, intend on committing these types of acts. And since they saw that these weapons are being used successfully by others that have similar motives, as sensationalized by the media, What kind of weapon do you think their going to try to get their hands on to use?
Nothing in the constitution discusses what types of arms citizens are permitted to own. Would the NRA argue that private citizens can ride to work in tanks, carry grenade launchers and flame throwers, or patrol their neighborhoods with weaponized drones? Take this to its illogical extreme- does the second amendment guarantee our citizens the right to own nuclear devices? We have to draw the line somewhere to prevent civilian ownership of military weapons - restricting assault rifles is just common sense
"The sword and rifle and the bayonet and canon and all terrible implements of the solder are the birth right of the American citizen"- Benjamin Franklin
You can own a tank and drive it (they are pretty cool). You can own flamethrowers and grenade launchers, but when have they been used in a mass murder or crime? Weaponized drones are too expensive, and not a lot of people want one. Nuclear devices are pretty illegal already for civilians. We have drawn the line. People just want to keep pushing that line until we have absolutely no guns, which will never happen. Assault rifles are already heavily controlled and have not been used in crimes in the last few decades.
Russia's crime rate has been dropping over the years, down from over 30 in 1995. Greenland is not a member state of the UN and doesn't follow all thier laws, North Koreas has also been dropping in time.
Honduras allowed concealed weapons etc until 2007. Of the 800,000 weapons estimated there, over 650,000 are unregistered, with 500,000 being "military grade".
Gun laws don't fix problems overnight, it takes decades for it to get to a good level. It is a long term fix to a long term addiction.
Minus factors like drug cartels running countries or countries in a state of chaos due to extreme poverty and roving war bands, there is a very direct correlation in between gun control and deaths. The U.S. is a prime example of where our cowboy mentality and rejection of fact leads to way way way more dead people than we should ever accept.
Cherry Pick. Look at your article. Notice it did not mention anyone above the United States, which there are many more countries that are. This is a classic example of bias. It is indisputable that your facts are correct. However, it takes it out of context from the rest of the world.
There are like 10 countries ahead of the U.S., you've mentioned like three of them. The other 70 something countries with statistics all do a better job, many 2nd world countries do a better job.
It is an odd habit of those on your side of issues, to wrap yourselves in American flags made of strawmen and re-written history, to contentedly brag about this country in areas where we are in the bottom 10% in terms of performance while accusing anyone who dares suggest the U.S. should be in the top 1% (us being the richest and most advanced country in the history of the world after all) in any area, whether it be gun violence or healthcare, of somehow being against what this country stands for.
Well, you have that right. For me, I'd rather be one of the best countries in terms of gun violence.
Since statistically we know for an absolute fact that better regulation of high powered guns and better background checks works, that is what I am for.
Tell yourself all the fairy tales about mexican stand-offs in your home you like, and continue to only compare the U.S. to societies decades behind us to backup your fantasies if you like. Try to remember in some part of your mind though, that this specific pursuit of fantasy has lead to more innocent deaths than nearly any other country in the world.
ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans
Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works. Since we know statistically that better regulation of high powered guns works.
And please take a look at the link. It shows a map of gun ownership versus gun violence in the entire world.
Every time anyone studies this subject who isn't a right wing nut group like Breitbart or the NRA itself, the numbers are the same. The U.S. has a huge problem and better gun control is a proven way to solve it.
I'm not looking at the site itself. If you noticed on the bottom of the maps, they were a from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. This site was the only one that had it in a convienent package. And almost all of these site are left wing nut sites. And your fact check site showed that gun ownership and manufacture have increased, yet the gun crimes are in their lowest.
When you start calling Wikipedia (who's using WHO stats) Forbes, and Business Insider left wing sources you know your have fallen off the deep end. Left wing sources would be Huffington Post or MSNBC, who consequently use the same set of facts. The left has an annoying habit of not pulling bullshit completely out of their ass, unlike Breitbart and others.
What would that do? Criminals don't follow the law why is that so hard to understand? All guns are banned in Mexico and the cartels have all the Gus they want. It's called the black market genius. The problem with laws is that only law abiding citizens follow them. Criminals already by and sell illegal drugs and guns in this country we should make as many guns available to people who can pass a background check as is possible. The criminals will have any gun they want anyway. so should the honest law abiding citizens they pray on.
100% wrong. get more guns out of criculation and theres far less chance of idiots and criminals getting hold of one. tighten gun laws and empower the police to enforec these laws. this is how it has worked brilliantly in all of europe since they tightended gun laws. they dont sell them in shops, nor bullets and only people with legitimate reasons can buy guns. assault weapons are 100% illegal. no citizen needs a gun firing 100 bullets a minute. as weve seen for years they soon fall into the hands of maniacs and NOONE can defend themselves agaisnt such a weapon, not even ex soldiers not even navy seals.
the end result is the gun murder rate in europe is 80 times lower than america. so for example france or uk has 35 gun murders a year , thats 1 in every 2.48 million people, in america 11500 were gunned down last year, thats 1 in every 30,000 people...80 times the murder rate
Feeling the need to always carry bigger guns with more bullets because you are in constant fear of someone else with bigger guns and more bullets is not freedom, and it is that sort of fear which allows one to give up the true liberties which Franklin was speaking of.
Freedom is the ability to go about your day without a gun because you know that laws made by the people are enforced by people appointed by people. If your idea of fun is having a sensible gun, fine, no one is suggesting all guns be banned, only common sense rules concerning them, similar to common sense rules about driving a car.
btw, I didn't know if you realized but your avatar is all wrong. You are throwing around your American-ness whilst waiving around the flag of a group of slave-driving anti-american separatists. You might want to change that up.
Actually the confederate constitution outlawed the slave triad check your history. My avatar expresses my southern and bronyness pride that's all. And freedom is being able to own any gun you feel is adequate for you defense.
Ugh. It's so sad how schools in the south are allowed to misinform you poor bastards. The South never outlawed slavery and never intended to. Toward the end of the war when it was obvious they were going to get their slave driving asses kicked they began abandoning laws that supported slavery in small part, but that was after they were losing, and it was only partially. They never made a law saying slavery of any type was illegal.
And your definition of freedom is almost as sad as your knowledge of history. If you are so scared for yourself that you are against all gun control no matter how many kids and innocent people gun control could save, you are a pussy.
wow type A yankee ignorence the confederate constitution out lawed the slave traid but not ownership that was expected to go away on its own in time. and my deffiniton of freedom is the very same as our nation's founders thank you very much. their is a reason why they said our rights to keep and bare arms must not be infringed so stop infringing them.
1. You are still incorrect. The timing of limits to slave trade were precisely when it became evident the their loss was inevitable. It was part of their strategy to re-shift their reasoning away from slavery (which was the true purpose of their rebellion) which they found had become somewhat less popular in the South, being as only around 30% of households still owned slaves at that point--as fucking barbaric and backwards as even that was.
2. The right to bear arms never included nor was intended to include unregulated arms or even unlimited arms. Regulation was and always was a key element of the amendment.
3. And most importantly their reasoning was a "trained militia" because at that time the U.S. ability to quickly put together a militia was limited. It's purpose was not to encourage a paranoid psychosis about rogue governments or hordes of bandits at the doorstep.
That you actually believe that but for a bunch of hillbillies ability to buy military style weapons the U.S. would fall to some invisible tyranny, would be comical if it were not so prevalent. Seriously, I don't know when so much of the country went nuts but it's this type of reasoning that makes rational people start to think gun control proposed doesn't go far enough.
I'm beginning to think that a litmus test for any gun ownership should be how much one foams and rants when logical people suggest only limiting them.
If you are that into guns, I'm uncomfortable with you having any type of gun at all honestly. It's just a matter of time before a cat at your window scares your delicate ass and you shoot your kids or something--which is more common than fending off bandits at the door by the way.
You are warped dude. Let me tell you something A your very bad at history. And B the term shall not be infringed means shall not be fucking infringed so hands off gun grabber. And I am very responsible with my fire arms no one in my house is in any danger. And it's undeniable the government is gaining new power because of there clever use of this AlQuida boogy man (which they funded and trained back it the 80s) wake up little lamb this was their plan all along do you get it now?
You can just tell me. You don't have to tell me you're going to tell me... or ask permission if that is what you are trying to do.
A your very bad at history
I gave you the link did I not? You've not supplied anything to the contrary. You cannot in fact because this is correct, there were some laws limiting some slave trade in the South late in the war, after they realized they were going to lose. That's a fact. Now you can pretend the timing is coincidence, and you can pretend it was about state's rights, but you are living in a fantasy. Those with power in the South were the ones with slaves, the only right they were afraid for was their right to own other humans. That's it. There was no other issue bothering them, least not to the extent of going to war over it.
the term shall not be infringed means shall not be fucking infringed so hands off gun grabber
Did that sound clever in your head? Anyway, its the right of a "regulated" "state" "militia" if you are not in a state militia and are not regulated the amendment does not apply to you. The Supreme Court later ruled individuals do have a right to firearms, but they upheld that regulation was still perfectly legal. So quit arguing strawmen, the issue is regulation not taking all guns away, and regulation is legal by every definition of the amendment and more importantly smart, because smart regulation means less dead innocent people.
And I am very responsible with my fire arms no one in my house is in any danger
That's what they all say.
And it's undeniable the government is gaining new power because of there clever use of this AlQuida boogy man
Sure, the Patriot Act, which I'm 90% against. Nothing to do with guns though, it's a separate issue entirely and I have no idea why you are bringing it up.
(which they funded and trained back it the 80s)
I know. Regan funded Al Qaeda, then Bush started a war in Iraq saying it was Al Qaeda (and nukes), then Obama killed the leader of Al Qaeda who was like a thousand miles away from Iraq. My question is why you southern hillbillies hate Obama so much, he kicks ass when it comes to getting terrorists, something like 5x as many in 4 years than Bush in 8. Again though, this has nothing to do with guns.
wake up little lamb this was their plan all along do you get it now?
Do I get that you are making vague connections in between foreign policy and your right to bear arms? I think so. Do I get why you are making that slightly schizophrenic connection? I must admit I do not.
First of al there was no link but to the topic at hand. The Last part of my argument had admitibly nothing to do with gun control I was showing you how our government creates these terrorist boogie men they uses them to scare us so bad we will gladly give any right away just to feel safe Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave right now. And I hate Obama because he's a socialist who is playing ball with that un american bitch polosie. The Supreme Court ruled that the people are the militia therefore it dose apply to me and following a strict interpretation of the constitution there is no way anyone can say restrictions are legal. More restrictions result in more confident criminals ONLY.
I don't think we need a ban on automatic weapons. Banning guns will just esclate the problem. Just leave it as it is and maybe have guards in schools at risk.
Automatic weapons are already illegal. Military style weapons have been used for hunting and defense. I believe there was a man who stood atop his house while racial riots were going down in LA. He defended his family and home from the mob with an AR-15.
yes but a gun would have done the same, also the fact is because there are 300 million guns in america now, its too easy for maniacs and criminals to get hold of them, its a downward spirral of guns and violence. the trick is to get as many off our streets , tighten gun controls, ban automatics and military style guns and pay more tax so the government can seriously find and treat the tens of millions of untreated mentally ill people in this country. the issue is to go after guns and mental health. those who have legitimate gun licenses can of course carry on as normal. but not with the military style guns. they must also keep their guns locked away safer unlike the mother of the latest mass murderer
Banning automatics has already been done unless you have a license (I feel like a parrot). The military weapons are used in a fraction of a percent of gun crimes. Mental health needs to be looked at. Banning these guns did not work previously, so why are we doing the exact same experiment expecting different results? We don't need to tighten gun controls. We need to enforce the ones we have. Not much is being done in that area. Paying more taxes to the government isn't a good idea. They need to fix the debt first and stop wasting the taxes they get already. Reforms on taxes is a good idea. Getting guns off the street is a good idea. Studies by the FBI show that most of them are in areas of high poverty. Lets help those out and crime will be reduced, especially in Chicago and other big cities. We can not carry military style guns, that is already into law. Only pistols. Keeping guns locked away won't be solved by a law, but by training and ad campaigns.
The second amendment dose not apply to hunting so that's an invalid argument. And when it comes to self defense it depends on what your attacker has many criminals have automatic weapons both illegal models (full automatic) and legal models (semi automatic) and will even if they are banned.
For hunting, no. For defense absolutely. If crooks and the government (pretty much one in the same anymore) have them, then you better believe that I want the same to defend myself.
of course not...we have too many evil people roaming the earth...those gun laws dont mean jack to them...and lets not forget about the tyrants that fake terrorist attacks and school shootings in order to further their hidden agendas
Gun crime has gone down in the US. The media pumps it up. You should not ban automatic guns and tighten gun laws unless you are going to subject your armies and police force to the same ends. It's bad enough they power trip over everyone lets not add the fact that they will be incredibly over powered if there ever needs to be a revolt in your country due to tyrannical governments. Keep your guns for fuck sakes. People are so concerned with safety that your willing to give up something that keeps you safe. Where's the logic in that!
