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 on guns? Specifically "assault weapons"
Hilary Clinton has expressed her dislike of firearms many times. Namely, if she were to be elected president of the United States, she might have a chance of passing a ban on "assault" weapons, like the one passed during her husband's term.
Restriction of certain weapons is certainly a first step then there needs to be regulations and control on who can own a gun.
In Australia we have strict conditions on how and who can purchase a weapon and what type we are allowed to own.
First we need a license, then we need a permit to buy, which usually takes about six months and involves a police check.
There are strict conditions on keeping the weapon at home in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor and wall with a separate safe for the ammunition. The whereabouts of the keys are only allowed to be known to the licensed gun owner.
The police have the right to enter my property to check that I have complied with the regulations and have a current license.
That is what I call the next step to outright Government control of te people. By the time I got my locked gun and locked ammunition out of their safe, my family would be dead and the cops will show up after the carnage, as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.
People like you are truly scary. What kind of fool fears a law abiding citizen's right to keep his firearms at home where HE DECIDES! There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN... LIVE WITH IT FOOL! Do you know how many people's lives have been saved by a fire arm in the home? Nah, you just want to control the people with the laughble excuse of saftey in our homes from accidental shootings.
Governments are power hungry control freaks and will take all your freedoms if fools allow them to.
There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN
these accidents are needless as they are non-existent in countries where guns are restricted. and despite your dismissive tone on accidents with guns, they account for over 2/3 of gun related deaths in america.
as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.
a good example where heavily restricting guns has been effective:
but banning guns is just one solution that other countries haven't followed and yet their gun related deaths are remarkably low compared to america. the us really just seems irresponsible from the statistics. also, the us may not be the worst in firearm related deaths but are only topped by developing and third world countries such as jamaica and ecuador.
HOGWASH, it matters not if other nations have any less killings which I don't believe. Freedom is worth the few accidents, and saves live when people have guns to protect themselves.
What kind of fool wants to live in a nation where Government controls our freedoms all in the name of safety. Screw that pathetic ideology.
Stop allowing bars, and ban drinking if you really wnt to save lives but no.... YOU LIKE THE FREEDOM TO DRINK! You are a total hypocrite!
HOGWASH, it matters not if other nations have any less killings which I don't believe. Freedom is worth the few accidents, and saves live when people have guns to protect themselves.
Not being killed is a freedom in and of itself. It is worth looking at why other nations have fewer murders (again, strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment).
What kind of fool wants to live in a nation where Government controls our freedoms all in the name of safety.
To an extent, every single solitary government does that. Every single one. That is a basic tenant of Social Contract Theory.
Stop allowing bars, and ban drinking if you really wnt to save lives but no.... YOU LIKE THE FREEDOM TO DRINK! You are a total hypocrite!
i don't think he ever quotes anything anyone says. ever. he just goes on a rant loosely based around what you may or may not have said or repeats what he said previously. he also unfailingly adds fools and hogwash into whatever he says as many times as he replies.
it matters not if other nations have any less killings which I don't believe
you don't believe that it matters? or you don't believe that that is true? either way that is very concerning...
it is not viable to dismiss points you don't agree with saying you don't care about them. a picture of a person is a picture of a fish if you don't care about the fins, gills, habitat, scales, size etc. how many things will you ignore until you admit some sort of falsehood?
saves live when people have guns to protect themselves.
the point is that more people die from homicides and accidents than as many are saved by protecting themselves, which is evident in the number of deaths by firearms in other countries.
Stop allowing bars, and ban drinking if you really wnt to save lives but no.... YOU LIKE THE FREEDOM TO DRINK! You are a total hypocrite!
ok. i never mentioned my stance on drinking yet you jump to me being a hypocrite...
actually i disagree with drinking as well. alcohol one of the more harmful drugs out there and find it ridiculous that it is legal with so few restrictions over it. there are several other drugs that would be far less problematic if legalised in the place of alcohol.
That is what I call the next step to outright Government control of te people. By the time I got my locked gun and locked ammunition out of their safe, my family would be dead and the cops will show up after the carnage, as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.
The latter part is a good explanation of why the whole separation of gun and ammunition thing is nonsense, but how does that have anything to do with "the next step to outright Government control of [te] people"?
There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father.
What about a mother?
ACCIDENTS HAPPEN... LIVE WITH IT FOOL
I think he is advocating a misguided attempt to manage accidents, which is not the worse motivation in the world. Hardly reason to insult him.
Do you know how many people's lives have been saved by a fire arm in the home?
I am a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but if you are going to throw something like this out, you need to back it up with figures for it to have legitimacy.
You are protecting us from the criminals with guns by having us secure our guns? How does that protect me at all?
ah, the dawn is approaching.
you see, if the ppl who have the guns legally are more careful and responsible with them, then it becomes virtually impossible for criminals to get access to them.
works with dynamite
works with radioactive materials
works with hazardous waste
works with all manner of dangerous items
make those who have the legal right to these items responsible for keeping them secure, and those without that legal right have a much harder time getting them.
you see, if the ppl who have the guns legally are more careful and responsible with them, then it becomes virtually impossible for criminals to get access to them.
This is not true at all. Sorry.
works with dynamite
works with radioactive materials
works with hazardous waste
These are all banned for normal citizens. That has nothing to do with securing guns.
make those who have the legal right to these items responsible for keeping them secure, and those without that legal right have a much harder time getting them.
its not illegal to have your truck load stolen. ... and at the same time is also not illegal to walk away from such a loss with a handy tax write-off.
not only should arm dealers not be allowed to write off losses like this but they should be required to carry insurance that pays into the treasury for the cost those weapons will take on society.
You know what, I don't actually know what happens when a truck gets stolen, but you don't know anything. I would rather look for and sip gun thieves from stealing the truck instead of trying to figure out ways to punish people who are victims of a crime. See the difference?
No, stop paying them so much to investigate legal dealers.
How does black market corruption mean I shouldn't have a certain type of gun?
Investigate all gun thefts. Yes, that would be a good idea instead of investigating whether Bob down the street had purchased the correct firearm that you approve of.
No, what is indefensible is saying that if Charlie shoots Bob, let's regulate Bob. To demonstrate that it is indefensible look at how ridiculous all of your arguments are.
if charlie shot bob with bob's own gun because bob was foolish enough to leave it lying around loaded... they YES we should regulate bob.
i'm not satisfied with the Darwinian Award nature of it, i want bob to know ahead of time that he's taking on a serious responsibility and that he's got to take measures, get trained, pay for insurance and have a license that he must renewed every couple of years... if bob had to do all that, he would have had the gun secured and he could have beaten charlie to death with a baseball bat instead.
if charlie shot bob with bob's own gun because bob was foolish enough to leave it lying around loaded... they YES we should regulate bob.
Fuck you. You know that Charlie used his own gun that he got through illegal means.
i want bob to know ahead of time that he's taking on a serious responsibility and that he's got to take measures, get trained, pay for insurance and have a license that he must renewed every couple of years...
Then why do you only propose completely different rules to follow?
if bob had to do all that, he would have had the gun secured and he could have beaten charlie to death with a baseball bat instead.
No, he would be dead because instead of a gun he had a bat and Charlie shot him because you didn't do anything to prevent Charlie from getting a gun.
statistics say that both bob and harry are 40% more likely to incur a gun related injury or death in their household because they have a gun present.
Oh how quickly we forget about Charlie. Bob is dead because Charlie shot him. It doesn't matter that Bob and Harry were more likely to shoot themselves. Charlie still did not get his gun from Harry.
and it is a fucking REAL cost to society that bob and harry are NOT paying for.
They are the ones who got shot, not you. They are the ones paying for it.
There are strict conditions on keeping the weapon at home in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor and wall with a separate safe for the ammunition. The whereabouts of the keys are only allowed to be known to the licensed gun owner.
I think one of the arguments against gun control is self defense. If the ammunition is kept separate from the weapon, it would be harder to defend oneself.
that depends on how well "regulated" you are with your weapon and what sort of time frame you are expecting to be notified of the need for these weapons.
the notion that an individual is going to whip his loaded gun out from under his pillow and shoot a burglar dead from a sound sleep is complete bullshit.
we spend 1/3 of our lives COMPLETELY oblivious to who is in the room with us... by then its WAY too late for a gun... you had better have a bat handy.
the notion that an individual is going to whip his loaded gun out from under his pillow and shoot a burglar dead from a sound sleep is complete bullshit.
we spend 1/3 of our lives COMPLETELY oblivious to who is in the room with us... by then its WAY too late for a gun... you had better have a bat handy.
No one suggested anything about a deep sleep. Why build a strawman?
but even if you limit the discussion to "crimes" there are plenty of "first timers" that create harm to society as a result of easy access to guns.
Actually, escalation of criminal behavior is a real thing. People rarely go on mass shootings as their first criminal act (you watch too much TV). Refer to the most recent mass shooting in the USA. Roof had a criminal background.
make the access more difficult and they will not have as much opportunity.
Weapons smuggling is a serious problem. That cannot be solved through gun control laws against average citizens, unless if you wish to implement a police state.
Weapons smuggling is a serious problem. That cannot be solved through gun control laws against average citizens, unless if you wish to implement a police state.
this is true, which is why a comprehensive gun control law at the federal level must also include regulations on the manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers...as well as second hand and private sales.
the ENTIRE supply chain needs to be regulated at the FEDERAL level so there are no 'leaks' of weapons (or weapon parts) onto the black market.
the more we can do to tighten up the LEGAL side of firearms traffic, the less the ILLEGAL side will have access to them.
we do this with explosives, hazardous materials, and radioactive waste all the time.
the ENTIRE supply chain needs to be regulated at the FEDERAL level so there are no 'leaks' of weapons (or weapon parts) onto the black market.
Weapons trafficking is an international issue. Even if the US gun lobby submits to strict US federal regulation, it will still not solve the problem of international gun running.
The only way your solution would work is if we insulate the US from the rest of the world.
we do this with explosives, hazardous materials, and radioactive waste all the time.
Weapons trafficking includes the smuggling of explosive weaponry.
People generally have no use for hazardous waste. Without demand, there will be no supply.
Even if the US gun lobby submits to strict US federal regulation, it will still not solve the problem of international gun running.
do you know what WOULD have helped solve that problem... the UN small arms agreement that our congress refused to ratify because of strong arm pressure from the NRA.
that's what WOULD have helped.... but no, we can't have that.
This only works if the major suppliers of illegal international arms signs and enforces this treaty. Even if Congress ratifies this, it will probably have no effect on the US black market.
as for its effect on the US black market... you were the one who brought up international arm trafficking in regards to the US black market... i've never made any connection between the two.
in fact i agree, that i don't think there is much of a connection.
You aren't. People get guns illegally and commit crimes. Adding more instances of illegal guns will not reduce the number of guns acquired illegally.
gun "crimes" are only part of the harm guns do to society.
Fuck off. I am not interested in your bullshit unproven ideas that you are in more danger based on nothing because guns are around. Let's try to deal with facts.
but even if you limit the discussion to "crimes" there are plenty of "first timers" that create harm to society as a result of easy access to guns.
Why focus on the 1% of crimes being committed by 1% of the legal owners?
make the access more difficult and they will not have as much opportunity.
That is false. We already know this is false. We have made it more difficult for criminals to get guns and they still get them.
seems to me we're doing a fuck poor job, if you ask me.
Finally. So let's do a good job instead of adding more tasks that need to be done. Adding laws only adds more things that need to be done to do a good job.
they are incomplete, rife with loopholes and not universally applied.
So, enforce the law you have
fund that enforcement, instead of undercutting it at every turn and we will be able to... my working theory is that is the LAST thing you want to have happen.
So let's do a good job instead of adding more tasks that need to be done.
think about what you just wrote... when EVER have you been asked to do a "better" job at something, without having to ADD to your list?
by definition of doing a 'better' job, it implies that something is MISSING and needs to be ADDED.
they are incomplete, rife with loopholes and not universally applied.
We don't enforce the incomplete laws which would work if applied.
fund that enforcement, instead of undercutting it at every turn and we will be able to... my working theory is that is the LAST thing you want to have happen.
You are the one undercutting it by making them do more things with the same budget.
think about what you just wrote... when EVER have you been asked to do a "better" job at something, without having to ADD to your list?
I don't serve fries to people. I am asked to perform with higher quality all the time without needing to do more tasks.
by definition of doing a 'better' job, it implies that something is MISSING and needs to be ADDED.
You can add gas to a fire or water to a fire. One will make the fire grow, and one will make it shrink. Adding something doesn't mean that you are adding the right thing.
I want to add water. You want to add fire. We need to put resources into law enforcement stopping criminals with guns, not add resources into law enforcement to stop law abiding citizens.
They aren't buying them from gun dealers, so new gun dealer rules are a waste of time. They are getting them from black market sales that aren't being investigated while cops investigate gun dealers.
How about we make a deal you give up random rights that I choose without any knowledge and you get to continue making decisions on guns without any knowledge? Do you agree to that?
The gun dealers aren't selling illegal guns. How is investigating gun dealers an example of cops enforcing laws against illegal gun sales? Every law that is added to prevent legal owners from getting guns is more time spent looking at gun dealers. They give the government their address.
I will never be satisfied with your answers because you made it abundantly clear that you hate facts.
Let me limit the selection on the things you use. Will you let me choose a list of items you can use without having any knowledge of how you want to use them? Can I decide what shoes you wear? You still get to wear shoes.
Interesting. It is sort of not a legal venue. They don't go through the legal means to get it. So, tracking down what happens to all guns is a good idea instead of picking and choosing. Thanks for the info.
there is no better case i could make for keeping our eye on LEGAL venues...
the black market headwaters are where the most effective gun control legislation should focus.
close the gun show loophole and put an end to straw purchase.... make EVERY firearms transfer (for money or not) go thru a licensed broker where it shall be recorded.
assign liability for the weapon to the new owner and RELEASE the previous owner of any liability should that weapon end up in a crime scene.
So, if we get the regular citizens to make sure they have locked up all their guns properly FFLs will stop providing guns to the black market? How will that happen?
Stop advocating that we shut down the smallest portion of guns that make it into the black market then. You look weak when you attack a small percentage of guns for absolutely no reason.
It is not weak to try to prevent a greater amount of guns from falling into criminal hands.
You are fucking retarded. We don't need any more laws. It is fucking stupid to think that more laws are needed when the current laws aren't being followed. I don't provide reforms because I am smart. I provide solutions.
Oh, you can't read. It is ok. Just tell people you can't read. They will take it easy on you.
you seem to be good at insults and swearing, but you are coming up short (bus) on the solutions part.
Haha, you said short bus. You are so hilarious. Don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. If you actually read what I write you will find I have a better idea of how to fix things than you. But, you are a liberal, and all you care about is getting rid of guns and not protecting people.
under the last "ban" that expired (because GWB is an idiot) you could still get many of the weapons, you just needed to go thru more effort to do it.
.
the reason is that these kinds of weapons have features or functions that can only be legitimately managed in a military setting (armories, live fire training, regular drills.. etc).
.
unless you are willing to sign up to be that WELL REGULATED, then you can do just fine with an ordinary rifle, without the grande launcher, or the mussel flash suppressor, or the break down stock... et. al.
unless you are willing to sign up to be that WELL REGULATED, then you can do just fine with an ordinary rifle, without the grande launcher, or the mussel flash suppressor, or the break down stock... et. al.
Except the law states you can't have a grenade launcher mount, or a mussel flash suppressor mount, or a bayonet mount. It seems really weird to gun owners to say that if you can attach something to your gun that your gun becomes more dangerous.
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.
Your argument is "I know I won't catch anyone since all of the guns being used are already illegal".
My argument is akin to "we don't catch all murderers, why have laws against owning trash bags, cleaning supplies, and stain removers used to clean up a murder"
How come no one gets upset about the real dangers in our lives. Statistically, having a pool is far more dangerous for ones family than having a gun. Where is the outrage? Motorcycles are an unnecessary form of transportation and are highly dangerous, causing more deaths than guns. Ban motorcycles? Of the 3 things the ATF is involved with, Alcohol and Tobacco are far more deadly than guns, yet here we are. I really don't get it...
