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.
Barney Sanders On Gun Control
Here is what the Idiot Socialist stated - " "Instead of people yelling at each other, we have got to come together on commonsense approaches which, in fact, the vast majority of the American people support," said Sanders, who represents a rural state with few gun laws. He added that there is "widespread support to ban semi-automatic assault weapons, guns which have no other purpose but to kill people."
Is a revolver not an assault weapon ? Is a 12 gauge shotgun not an assault weapon ? Is a 7 mag 5 shot bolt action rifle not an assault weapon ? Weapons are made for killing but the intent to assault people with a weapon has nothing to do with the gun.
What might the Idiot Socialist plan be for weapons if he were ever elected for POTUS ?
The same day as sandy hook, a man in China stabbed 23 school children and an old lady with a knife. Yes any weapon is an assault weapon. Weapon definition: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
That doesn't mean there shouldn't be more restrictions placed on firearms in the USA. Yes, you're right, it's unrealistic to ban all firearms for the same reason it's unreasonable to ban all knives, but look at the other developed nations and you'll see that they have found ways of dealing with this by categorising classes of firearms, based upon their usefulness to the public against their risk of abuse. We also do this with knives, interestingly enough.
A kitchen knife? Very useful, relatively low risk. No permit necessary.
A hunting knife? Slightly less useful, slightly higher risk. Permit necessary for blades over a certain size
A rimfire bolt-action rifle? Useful in certain circumstances, moderate to high risk of abuse. Permit necessary, with police checks, induction tests, and restrictions around usage
A fully-automatic rifle? Rarely useful, extreme risk. Banned from public use.
This is one of the things I've found most confusing about the gun debate in America. People seem to treat it like it's a "ban them all or legalise them all" matter, despite the fact that different classes of firearm can be defined with relative ease. It's especially surprising to hear from people who do use firearms regularly; gun lovers should know all about the different kinds of weaponry and the potential uses of them.
Please don't flip out at me here Pastafarianism, I'm honestly curious to discuss this topic (with someone who isn't just shitposting like Outlaw60)
Liberals in America like to remain ignorant about guns, but regulate them anyway. There has been no effort by most of the anti gun crowd to even learn what semi auto means. They like to underestimate how much we already regulate guns and exaggerate about how well gun laws work. The politicians can only make laws, so they promise to make laws to stop guns, but do not follow through and get anyone to enforce those laws.
That's true; I was honestly under the impression there were no regulations around gun ownership in the states when I was younger, because of some hilariously misinformed dickheads. That being said, while I'm disappointed by the moronic elements of the gun control group, I'm frankly confused by the pro-gun group who don't know anything about the laws, or firearms in general. If you're supporting ownership of something surely you'd know the thing you're supporting, right? Why support it otherwise?
I dunno man, people should do some research before forming an opinion on something so complex and important. Actual research too, rather than just googling the topic and reading a few opinion articles from questionable journalists
You gotta find new left-wing folk to talk to man, some of them have really good arguments. There'll always be mindless shittalkers on both sides, sadly. Sure would be nice if those mindless shittalkers didn't get a say in the important matters though
A criminal breaks laws. If they want to kill people they will kill people. If they want to break the law and kill someone they wont give 2 craps about any regulations. All a ban would do would be make it harder for law abiding citzens to protect themselves from terrorists.
1. Most murders occur as crimes of passion. Ready access to firearms makes this easier. Tighter regulations around the storage of firearms would resolve this.
2. Some murders, such as those that occur during the random shootings the USA has had so many issues with, occur because mentally unstable people can readily access firearms. Tighter regulations around the selling of firearms would resolve this.
3. "Protect [yourself] from terrorists" this is one of the stranger arguments I've heard. What do you think is going to happen? Do you really think a dude with a semi-auto rifle is gonna burst into your home one day and start shooting the place up? Even if that was to happen (it won't, I promise), you'd need to have your firearm within arms reach and loaded at all times for it to be any help. That's a great way to accidentally shoot yourself.
In fact we do. My dad caries around a pistol every ware except when its illegal. There is a magical thing known as a safety switch. When you carry a pistol there is no round in the chamber and it would be in a holster. You would need to chaber a round, disable the safety and point it at yourself all by accident. Highly unlikely. The only reason i dont carry is because i am under the legal age. You will notice that most shoting occour in regulated zone (sandy hook) because no can defend themselves i have to go but i will continue later
I'm familiar with firearm mechanics mate, but I'm also familiar with a pretty common trend in life: Shit happens. Even ignoring that, you're still taking unnecessary risks by keeping a firearm on you at all times. First of all, and this one's a bit awkward, but committing suicide is just far more likely if you have a gun on you.
Secondly, if someone else gets their hand on that gun and doesn't know what they're doing (like, say, a small child), they're going to hurt themselves or someone else. This happens quite a bit over there. Far more than terrorist attacks do, anyway
Thirdly, you're assuming that you'd be able to immediately spot what a terrorist attack looks like. What if you make a mistake? Because a mistake with a firearm means people die. You're much more likely to tragically misunderstand a situation than be in an actual terrorist attack.
I'm from Australia, so I don't know much about where those shootings occur, but my understanding is that a regulated zone is likely to be heavily populated. Might it not be that the crazy bastards behind these mass shootings are just picking the place to do the most damage?
Once again if you want do do something terrible you will find a way. If you are depressed and want to kill yourself you will do it with what ever means are necessary. If you are going to commit suicide you will most likely do it at home where it wouldn't mater if you carried a gun. Plus a ban could not prevent deaths like these. The risk of an attack of any sort, guns, knives, other sharp objects, is far greater than the risk of you hurting yourself.
That is one of the reasons we don't keep a round in the chamber. I'm not quite sure if you have ever used a gun but they are VARY hard to cock. I am in 8th grade and I can have a hard time with this. All the other guns we own are locked in a safe and don't even have a magazine in them. I have never heard of any children hurting people with guns in the US.
When people are shooting at other people chances are they're "bad guys". Yes firearms kill but in a scenario like this they can also prevent unnecessary deaths. Imagine if someone in sandy hook had shot Adam Lanza. Many young innocent lives could have been saved. And for your information, gun protect you from assault, murder, terrorist attacks, wild animal attacks, and theft not just terrorist attacks.
If you haven't heard about the attacks over here, you've been living under a rock. Schools and government buildings are the only regulated areas. Businesses cant prohibit guns but taking a gun into one of those is only a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony. Those can be heavily populated but the are targeted more often because the terrorists know there pray will be unarmed. This is also the reason crime rates have gone up in australia since the ban over there.
Read that, and take a look through the sources they have down the bottom.
Imagine if someone in sandy hook had shot Adam Lanza
And imagine if someone else at Sandy Hook had seen someone shoot Adam Lanza, assumed that they were Andy, and shot them too.
Please understand, I'm not saying that guns can't be helpful in some situations, but the cost of having ready access to firearms for almost the entire population is so much worse than the benefits of heavy restrictions.
And for your information, gun protect you from assault, murder, terrorist attacks, wild animal attacks, and theft not just terrorist attacks.
Assault: If someone is beating me up, I'll happily take the beating if it means not being responsible for murdering another person
Murder: Running away, hiding, calling the police, these are all valid options too. True they're not always going to cut it, but seriously, what sort of life are you leading that being murdered is a legitimate fear?
Terrorist attacks: As discussed, hugely unlikely
Wild animal attacks: Yeah, that's why there are permits over here for farmers. We've got a few dangerous animals in Australia
Theft: I would rather give someone every physical thing I own than be responsible for murdering a fellow human being, even (ESPECIALLY) one who is desperate enough to resort to crime to survive. It's frankly concerning that, if faced with the idea someone might try stealing your TV, you immediately assume you'll goddamn kill them.
You've been living under a rock
Honestly dude Australia really is like that, 2/10 would not recommend (jokes, I love it here)
This is the reason crime rates have gone up in Australia since the ban over there
No, they haven't. I'll edit in the link to demonstrate that shortly.
Also, I just wanna make something clear here: I know you probably won't be convinced during this debate. That's okay. You're old enough to understand how important hearing different opinions can be, and young enough that you can accept them even if you don't agree with them. I don't mean to come across as rude or critical of you or your families beliefs, and if I do offend at any point please tell me so I can ease off a bit.
Really, I just like to think that by the end of this you'll have heard some interesting stuff that will make you think. That's all.
Aighty I'm just gonna copy/paste the point I made to someone else on this same board:
I can't speak for those other countries, but Australias population increased by about 20% over the time shown in the data that article was based on. Despite that, like you said, it's trending down/staying steady. I'd say that's a victory for us
Furthermore, the data that your Mintpressnews used for its findings was misinterpreted. They've referenced the total number of homicide deaths, not the number of firearm-related homicides. There's a graph in that second link that shows how that figure is going, and it's gone down considerably.
It's hard to offend me. I am certainly willing to listen to the other side of the argument. So please, don't back down. There is no way I can dispute this without knowing what you people have to say. I love to debate and this is an argument that I am somewhat passionate about. Just because my family believes dosen't mean I do. I am a firm believer that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm just glad I found another person willing to provide valid claims. With that being said, I don't think people with mental illness should have access to a gun. There is a law http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/possession-of-a-firearm-by-the-mentally- ill.aspx that prohibits the ownership of guns by a person with mental illness. That would help except the police do not enforce these laws. Vary few people are arrested under these laws. I think we should learn to enforce the laws that would work rather than make ones that wont do crap.
And imagine if someone else at Sandy Hook had seen someone shoot Adam Lanza, assumed that they were Andy, and shot them too.
Exhibit A: a man enters a school and begins shooting. The Secretary pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. I don't think that i would mistake him for a "terrorist".
Assault: If someone is beating me up, I'll happily take the beating if it means not being responsible for murdering another person
In a case like this, if the person is beating me up to kill me I have no problem. If they don't intend to kill me, I threaten them with the gun. In both scenarios the gun is helpful.
Running away
I am not in good enough shape to out run a bullet yet.
hiding
Until what, they find me and kill me?
calling the police
when seconds matter, the police are but minutes away.
what sort of life are you leading that being murdered is a legitimate fear?
Bad people do bad things. I don't live too far from a school where a stabling took place. Crazy people are every where.
As discussed, hugely unlikely
True, but if something happens, i'd rather be prepared.
I would rather give someone every physical thing I own than be responsible for murdering a fellow human being, even (ESPECIALLY) one who is desperate enough to resort to crime to survive.
I agree 100% but if they have a gun I want to be prepared.
It's frankly concerning that, if faced with the idea someone might try stealing your TV, you immediately assume you'll goddamn kill them.
That would make me just as guilty as the terrorists. As I said before the gun can be used to threaten people. However some people steal to survive, other steal for drugs. Trust me I know someone who did just that with someone at gunpoint. he went to jail for a bit.
Honestly dude Australia really is like that, 2/10 would not recommend (jokes, I love it here)
Whats it like over there? Always wanted to travel more.
Really, I just like to think that by the end of this you'll have heard some interesting stuff that will make you think. That's all.
That's good that you're willing and eager to discuss the topic, much better than some of the other people on this site (look at the other argument waterfalls on this thread for a prime example of what not to do)
That's a good point about mentally unstable people not being legally able to purchase firearms, but the issue there is that, for example, I owned a firearm long before I started suffering mental health issues. Owning a firearm (and keeping it readily accessible) isn't just saying "I'm safe from mistakes right now", it's saying "I can firmly and confidently predict I will be safe from mistakes for the foreseeable future", which is a heavy call to make when we're talking about something as dangerous as a gun.
One point you made there in particular really stood out to me: "I think we should learn to enforce the laws that would work rather than make ones that wont do crap"
Gun violence in the USA is, I think you'll agree, a major issue. Conversely, gun violence in Australia is a minor issue. Even accounting for our different populations it's still clear that our gun laws are, quite simply, more effective. Not to be rude, but it honestly doesn't sound like tighter regulations are the ones that "won't do crap".
Exhibit A: a man enters a school and begins shooting. The Secretary pulls out a gun and shoots him dead. I don't think that i would mistake him for a "terrorist".
Exhibit B: The Secretary, having had a very very late night the night before, makes a mistake and leaves his firearm on a desk. One of the students picks it up, and accidentally shoots themselves. This is a perfectly reasonable hypothetical. Arming the population to protect the population against the rest of the population is foolhardy, and shows a serious degree of (baseless) paranoia and fear.
In a case like this, if the person is beating me up to kill me I have no problem. If they don't intend to kill me, I threaten them with the gun. In both scenarios the gun is helpful.
Unless you miss, which is entirely possible. Shooting at a firing range is nothing like shooting in combat (or so I've been told). Plus, if you miss, you might hit an innocent bystander. Or yourself. Also, if you pull a gun, that's just gonna prompt them to pull a gun too. Suddenly the violent but generally innocent fistfight has turned into a deadly standoff.
Escalation doesn't resolve problems.
I am not in good enough shape to outrun a bullet yet
Honestly I just cracked up at the "yet" in that, 10/10
Until what, they find and kill me?
Or until the police show up
When seconds matter, the police are but minutes away
We don't have any major issues with criminal murder in Australia. Perhaps the resolution to your problems over there isn't arming the population, but instead improving your police force.
Bad people do bad things
That's a simplistic view, to say the least. Crazy people aren't everywhere, the world isn't as terrible as you think. It can be awful, don't get me wrong, but it's far easier (and healthier) to just talk to the person until the police arrive.
True, but if something happens, I'd rather be prepared
Your version of "being prepared" is carrying one of the most effective killing machines humanity have ever developed on you at all times. The risks involved in carrying that far outweigh the risks you minimize. Why not instead prepare yourself by taking a class in negotiations and communication? Or contribute some time to helping the people at risk of having to move onto the street/turning to street drugs to self-medicate?
I agree 100% but if they have a gun I want to be prepared
If they have a gun and you have a gun someone is gonna die. If they have a gun and you don't, and they say "I want your TV", then you lose your TV but nobody dies. I know which option I'd pick.
Trust me I know someone who did just that with someone at gunpoint
Sounds like you've met some people with rough stories
What's it like over there
Right now? Hot. Hot and wet. I'm very sick of the weather, it is hot and unpleasant and ugh. Summer can get stuffed.
I just wanna summarise this super quickly, and I'm sorry for the wall of text
Carrying a firearm at all times creates more risks than it solves. It has been demonstrated time after time in several other countries that restrictions on the purchase and use of firearms help to save lives - this is not a debatable point, it's a demonstrable fact. The USA has a strong gun culture, and that's not a bad thing, but using guns for "personal protection" when you don't live in an area with dangerous wild animals is simply not feasible for any developed society.
Guns are great, I love them, but they're not for personal protection. They're simply too dangerous for that. It makes no sense to use a hand grenade for personal protection, and the same applies to even small firearms like a .22 rimfire. Instead, use guns for the awesome fun things like shooting at a firing range, or hunting. That's what we use them for over here, and we're going just fine.
Really? I hadn't heard anything like that over here, though to be fair I don't keep up with the firearm scene as much as I used to. Got any links I can read up on?
Thanks, reading over it now. Actually a heap of them over here would enjoy the chance to take some shots at the gun laws here (pun absolutely intended), good way to snag a few cheap votes. They wouldn't need to do anything, just say that they're irritated by them, and some of the older gun lovers who remember not having these laws would vote for them.
Which was an interesting read, but doesn't actually say where they got the data. It just says that "An investigation by The New Daily unearthed previously unpublished data for firearms offences collected from police and crime statistics agencies in four states – Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Tasmania." I dunno how much I'd trust that to be honest; we have a federal Institute of Criminology who collect and analyse that kind of data, and they've only published results up to 2012 as far as I can tell.
It could be they contacted the states individually, but I'd still put my faith in the AIC more than anything else, and I'd be surprised if gun-related violence started spiking after so many years of descent. Not shocked, but surprised.
Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:
United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.
Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.
Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.
I can't speak for those other countries, but Australias population increased by about 20% over the time shown in the data that article was based on. Despite that, like you said, it's trending down/staying steady. I'd say that's a victory for us
Furthermore, the data that your Mintpressnews used for its findings was misinterpreted. They've referenced the total number of homicide deaths, not the number of firearm-related homicides. There's a graph in that second link that shows how that figure is going, and it's gone down considerably.
That's really just a term over in the USA, and my understanding is that it varies from state to state. I can't speak for other countries, but over here we put weapons into a bunch of categories. For example, I have cat's A B and H
A means I have access to rimfire bolt-action rifles and air rifles
B means I have access to centrefire bolt-action rifles, and rifle/shotgun combinations (below a certain firepower)
H means I have access to most handguns
I think the closest thing to your "assault weapons" idea would be Category D weapons, which from memory are semi-auto or fully auto rifles above a certain size, and shotguns above a certain magazine capacity. I'd need to look that up to be certain tho
On that site you'll find the categories different weapons fall under in my state, Queensland. I imagine what you mean when you say "assault weapons" is roughly equal to "category D", which are not banned, they simply require a license that is much more strictly controlled than the other categories.
You are aware fully automatic weapons are legal in this country ? But under the NFA it is not classified as an assault weapon so what is an assault weapon by your assumption ?
No they're not, holy shit, read the goddamn link you bleating asshole
Category D weapons
(1) Each of the following is a category D weapon—
a) a self-loading centre-fire rifle designed or adapted for military purposes or a firearm that substantially duplicates a rifle of that type in design, function or appearance;
b) a non-military style self-loading centre-fire rifle with either an integral or detachable magazine;
c) a self-loading shotgun with either an integral or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than 5 rounds and a pump action shotgun with a capacity of more than 5 rounds;
d) a self-loading rim-fire rifle with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to a weapon mentioned in the subsection even if the weapon is permanently inoperable.
Makes it harder to buy them, means there are less guns to steal, makes it harder to steal them (legal requirements for gun safes), makes it harder to access your own gun quickly to reduce crimes of passion, creates a healthier culture around firearms.
We aren't an island that can just keep new guns from coming in.
We manufacture millions of guns every year. It would be incredibly difficult to keep all of those out of the hands of the people who aren't supposed to get it.
We have something like 68 times as many guns as Australia did when they banned guns. Buying back 68 times as many guns would be unreasonable.
Surely that just means the rollout of such restrictions would need to be different? The laws themselves are sound, simply difficult to implement from scratch.
