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.
Now now, fartlord/fartmachine/Norm/conservanazi and so forth, if you had gone to school instead of sucking your prostitute mother's monkey blood saturated sanitary towels you would have recognised the, amended historical quote attributed to Oliver Cromwell.
Yes Progressives don't want armed officers in schools because it destroys the narrative of Progressives wanting to confiscate weapons. It's to transparent Super Stupid that Progressives don't care about the children only the narrative. Would you like to see some links ??? Al Gore has an Amazing Internet for which i can expose you LMMFAO
Attacking the motive of you perceived opponent so you can tarnish their image and therefore their argument. Entirely speculatively.
You don't even argue with anyone in particular, just some warped caricature you've made, seemingly no longer representing anyone. It's easy to argue with a doll you've designed to fail, but it achieves nothing. why not actually reply to the content of someone's post and debate, try and change their mind through providing your perspective of the same info they're using.
As for children dying, if they go to Heaven, and we all die, what exactly is the problem in the grand scheme of things in its finality? Maybe God is a lib and uses "any means neccessary" to get to his desired or neccessary ends. I love when libs condemn God for using leftist tactics. How dare God use Marxist tactics to get his final utopia.
Proverbs 24:11-12 State "that The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Or in other words praying and not taking action.
that The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
That's some odd capitalization for the most read book in the world. Despite semantics, technically, praying could be seen as taking action because praying is an action, so you can take the action of praying.
Ya, children died because you didnt listen to us. We gave you plenty of ways to help protect our children. But noooo. Taking away our guns is the only sensible way to do it right?
Would you be interested in watching the onslaught of the police trying to disarm 33,000 gangs? Will your clan scream "systematic racism" or will it be okay to pursue a gang on cop war for the next 30 years?
Good question. I can’t remember the source, but I recall it being quite credible to me. After all when you consider all the private sales done at gun shows, between family members, on craigslist, with your neighbor, and so on, I think you’d find quite a few guns trading hands without a background check.
You and I have discussed private sales at gun shows before. You don’t think it happens much, if at all. Having bought a gun at a gun show, I think it happens all the time.
In any case, and no matter what the percentages actually are, I’d like every single purchaser of a gun to be required to go through a background check, no matter how that purchase occurs.
The reason I asked for a source is because I don’t think there is any credible way to provide statistics for that which is not monitored or tracked. The reason I don’t worry much about gun shows is because the ATF has successfully prosecuted people for unlicensed sales when they sold more than one gun.
In any case, and no matter what the percentages actually are, I’d like every single purchaser of a gun to be required to go through a background check, no matter how that purchase occurs.
I am not opposed to expanding background checks. When I sold a gun, I sold through a dealer though I wasn’t required to. However, I find reasonable circumstances for not requiring background checks. Transfers within immediate family where the recipient is a known valid gun owner for example. Or sales to other known valid parties such as officers of the law.
Requiring background checks for all transactions where the buyer is a stranger would vastly expand background checks and would be a measure that could conceivably be passed. One of the problems is that bills are omnibus and broad. No one will vote that bill in if there are riders attached. But NRA Republicans May well vote it in if it’s the only measure on the table.
The reason I asked for a source is because I don’t think there is any credible way to provide statistics for that which is not monitored or tracked.
Bullshit. I have seen you claim many times that guns have saved lives, which means you are now being a hypocrite. There is no credible way to provide statistics for that which never happened (i.e. the victim never died). You use one set of standards when considering views complicit with your own bias, and the literal opposite set of standards when considering views in opposition.
The reason I don’t worry much about gun shows is because the ATF has successfully prosecuted people for unlicensed sales when they sold more than one gun.
According to this impressively well-researched article, over one fifth of all gun sales occur without any background checks, either over the internet or at gun shows:-
Police kill approximately 1000 people every year. That approximately 1000 times that guns are legally used against a lethal threat to save lives. and that’s just the cops. Now if you provide a source for my previous discussions on the matter, you will see that I’m not a hypocrite so much as you are just a retard.
Your impressively well researched study is a survey of only 1613 people. And it’s only one study. It indicates half as many transactions lacking background checks compared to the previous study on the matter. That’s quite a decline. I expect a third more thorough study would be indicate less yet again. But I appreciate you providing an actual source.
I could also be persuaded that “I forgot” is not a valid answer to “who did you sell your gun to?”. Perhaps a law requiring receipts be presented upon request for up to x years.
When you say you want to close the gun show loophole, I say crack down on illegal straw purchases. The reality of these positions are not so far apart. Directing legislation in that direction would be a hell of a lot more effective than a ban on “assault style weapons” which does nothing but piss people off.
A source is not needed in order to conclude that legalising guns is counterproductive and stupid. That is something we call self-evident. Your very demands for a source every time someone provides information pursuant to that fact are cringeworthy attempts to deny basic common sense.
Nobody’s discussing whether to legalize guns dipshit. We are discussing the statistics of a situation where no known statistical data exists. Learn to read before you endeavor to write.
Of course a source is needed in this or any other issue, otherwise we could all make fictitious statements in support of our arguments in the knowledge that the false claims will never be challenged.
You're a clever sort of chap.
Now, if such a flawed statement was allowed to go uncontested some of the newer members may believe such nonsense.
The importance of providing a source is independant of whatever side you're on. When we argue we do so using information we've gathered and filtered. If the information used to form an opinion can not be shown to be credible, then the argument fails. Why should anyone bother contesting an argument built on false information?
Even if you say your conclusion is obvious or common sense, it's still based on information you have remembered. If it's info your opponent doesn't have or cannot trust, then you can't expect them to arrive at the same conclusion.
The importance of providing a source is independant of whatever side you're on.
You should perhaps try to understand that if or when something is an objectively self-evident piece of common sense and you demand a source before accepting its basic paradigm then the chances are extremely high you are doing so in order to derail the discussion. If, for example, we were having a debate about the trajectory of the Earth and my argument depended upon the Earth being round, demanding a source before you continue the conversation would not be "important". It would be stupid. The exact same principle applies to the attitude of Amarel and others in this thread toward guns. They refuse to accept basic, self-evident common sense, choosing instead to insist abstract statistical representations are more important than objective physical reality, on the sole basis that they can manipulate the former.
... then the chances are extremely high you are doing so in order to derail the discussion
I'm well aware of this tactic, but in this case the conclusion you present is not obvious and the information is new. Even though I personally agree with your conclusion, I do not trust the evidence excon used to arrive at it through his argument, because as far as I know, he may have made it up. Others may both disagree with both your conclusion and information, so provide a source, helps everyone.
If, for example, we were having a debate about the trajectory of the Earth and my argument depended upon the Earth being round, demanding a source before you continue the conversation would not be "important". It would be stupid.
It is popularly excepted that the earth is round. In most cases it will be an attempt to derail the conversation, but in the rare event that someone was unaware or did not believe it, then it would be reasonable for them to ask for a source. Back to excon's post, I didn't know that 'somewhere round 50% of guns legally change hands WITHOUT a background check', but he is making an argument from that information, therefore it is reasonable to ask for a source.
From before: A source is not needed in order to conclude that legalising guns is counterproductive and stupid
What I see you saying is that as long as evidence supports a conclusion you agree with, it does not need a source, the conclusion that guns are not necessary is not obvious. The argument of self-defence makes perfect sense in a certain context.
Well, if there are 300 million guns, and only a 150 million gun owners went through a background check, that leaves 150 million who didn't..
What about all those who bought multiple guns.
I know many gun owners, and not a single one of them only owns one gun.
If 150 million people went through background checks and 100 million passed, that leaves an average of 3 guns per background-check-passing supporter of the US Constitution.
That is a pretty realistic number in my (albeit limited) experience.
I am not saying no guns are sold without completion of background checks.
I am only saying that 50% sounds unrealistically high.
Children DIED. Right wingers say we need more prayer.
If by prayer they mean people shooting back at murderous a@$h&!es, then sure.
Alternately, if by prayer they mean giving advice about how to run the universe to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (and possibly fictional) being I fail to see how it would help.
If such a being is indeed fictional, prayer is as pointless as asking Mickey Mouse or Gandalf for help.
If such a being actually exists, then it would have long been aware and capable of dealing with the problem, but has chosen not to.
In that case, prayer is also pointless.
Seriously, what makes people think an omniscient and eternal being has not already decided how things are going to go?
Do they think life is just American Idol on a cosmic scale, and what happens depends on how many people call in to vote?
Maybe prayer is a self-serving thing, showing righteousness to god, providing some form of self-worth?
That sounds like a better way to pray than asking for fixes to problems.
Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
(1 Thessalonians 5:16-18)
The verse and the context seem to indicate that prayer is not about putting change in some deified cosmic vending machine, but about living a life of conscious joy, thanksgiving, and meaning.
That is not a fix for school shootings, but it is a way to move on afterward.