CreateDebate


Debate Info

58
56
We need gun control We need our guns
Debate Score:114
Arguments:85
Total Votes:123
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 We need gun control (39)
 
 We need our guns (44)

Debate Creator

addltd(4434) pic



Gun Control - should we have it?

In the aftermath of all of the recent mass shootings, many have been complaining about needing stronger gun control.  Now, we have Newtown.  A place where innocent children were executed by a clearly deranged individual.  It is clear that the Obama administration is looking to put gun control back up for consideration.

Should we have more gun control or more guns?

Here is a good article on it from CNN - http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/dash-gun-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We need gun control

Side Score: 58
VS.

We need our guns

Side Score: 56
3 points

This debate is premised on an appeal to emotion. Lets see how many logical fallacies you can fit into one debate! :-)

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

how is it an appeal to emotion? this issue is a pure intellectual issue

| Side: We need our guns
3 points

Statistics does not lie. 33 dead a day in US by usual legally owned guns. That's more than rest of the civilized word together.

Nothing better than stressed 40 years old High School teacher on heels with automatic weapon... off course unless she undergoes Marines boot camp and a turn in Afghanistan...:D

| Side: We need gun control
Oiden(392) Disputed
2 points

Yes, but this is one sided. How many are saved my legally owned guns? And if i was a killer and i wanted a AR-15 and it was illigal i would get it none the less. Buy it from the underground or somthing. They will allways find a way. THe AR-15 was also not Automatic, it was simiautomatic.

| Side: We need our guns
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
3 points

The argument that he would get the gun elsewhere is BS. First Assault rifles on black market are $4000-5000 which is far from his budget. Second he took the weapon after murdering his mother is she had no weapons there will be no shooting in a first place.

Weapon smugglers with military grade stuff do not sell to random people because it may attract unwanted attentions.

When assault rifle saved someone? Why do you even need that like weapon? Enemy soldiers would kill you anyway, same as anyone else who would surprise you.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

Here is a little statistic for you, America ranks 107th homicide rates, but ranks 1st in gun ownership. From 1960 to 2010 our homicide rate has dropped from 5.1 per 100,00 to 4.8 per 100,000 however violent crime rates have risen from 160.9 per 100,00 people to 403.6 per 100,000. After 70 years of gun control you have slightly lowered the homicide rate but drastically increased violent crime.

Gun control doesn't stop illegal gun sales, its like saying "lets make drugs illegal, it will take them off the street." Criminals will still get the banned guns, the problem with mass shootings is not guns, but its crazy people, you can't fix crazy by banning weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v;=joBMq6b4MmE&NR;=1

| Side: We need our guns
Banana_Slug(845) Disputed
3 points

USA roughly 150 dead from psycho shooting

UK 0

gun control works

.

| Side: We need gun control
2 points

Why do Americans really need heavy guns if not to shoot people? The fact is that if there were no guns America would be a much safer place.

So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun? Well, if they live near an area where there are creatures such as this then I do not see a real reason why they should not have something to keep them safe, such as a small pistol to wound an animal to give them time to get away and to freedom. Surely there is no reason to walk around with a heavy machine gun to protect yourself from a bear?

| Side: We need gun control

obviously, Black bears are ridiculous. I dunno what I'd do without my mounted mini gun on my jeep to protect me from those savage beasts >.>

<.<

| Side: We need gun control
Dominus(20) Disputed
1 point

Most Americans are as big as bears, anyway.

| Side: We need our guns

I think that it should be the people who are in need of self-control. Guns are good if used properly, but considering the lack of discipline by man these days, I think guns should be controlled until man becomes more responsible and worthy of holding one.

| Side: We need gun control
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

Hang on there, did you just say that an instrument whose invention hinged on the will to kill things more efficiently is a good thing? No man is worthy of holding the means to end another man's life.

No wonder America is so fucked.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

The 2nd amendment rights should be protected, and US citizens who are well qualified to own such weapons should be able to, however implementing better gun regulations such as taking a test, and doing things to continue to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. For it is not the guns fault, but the person who is using the gun, we need to regulate these guns and make sure they don't fall into the wrong hands by implementing proper tests and procedures to do so. If guns were as regulated as automobiles, we would be in a safer environment.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

All weapons are controlled in the UK

... so they think

People seem to forget how effective a well loaded handbag or a book can be.

But guns are designed to kill at the press of a button(trigger), and there's little effort in that.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

The benifits of no gun control are far outweighed by the negatives, thus gun control is neccisary.

Also in reference to the picture in the OP, gun control is like the liscence to drive a car, and the pathetic level of gun laws at the moment pretty much means nothing.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

Well, the past people were allowed to keep guns because those guns couldn't kill 30 people in 30 seconds. However, now people for some reason started buying modern weapons. If guns make people safer why America is not the safest place in the world? Generally speaking guns have harmed people a lot because some mentally ill people misuse it.Every person who wants to get gun have to be pass some tests of mental health. Nowadays it's cheaper and easier to buy a gun than a driving license. 119,079 children and teenager’s lives have been taken since 1979 by gun violence and this number will increase unless the government will fix this problem.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

It's beyond belief to me that any person should carry a gun , I remember my first time in the states and actually seeing armed police as an outsider (Ireland) I was shocked , now I know Americans find that strange , but by definition a gun is life threatening thus my shock . Guns have no place in society and much and all as I love the USA and its marvellous people I don't like guns . No other passage in the US Constitution is as hotly debated as the Second Amendment. In full, this controversial sentence reads:

“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.”Although most people focus on the “bear arms” part, the real key word is “militia.” The thing is, in 1791, no-one really knew if this whole “Union” thing was going to work out. Many of the States distrusted each other, and everyone distrusted big government. The possibility of invasion was frighteningly real, and the Second Amendment was put in place to make sure that a citizen’s militia could defend the principles of the constitution. What the Second Amendment didn’t do was grant any drunken asshole the right to stagger into a gun shop and buy an assault rifle without a single background check. In 1939, the Supreme Court even ruled that:“The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the view of its purpose of rendering effective Militia.”By 2008, they’d extended that to cover self-defense in the home—something else that doesn’t require a high-capacity magazine and the ability to kill everything within a three block radius. But that’s all they’d extended it to: there’s no constitutional “right” to carry a concealed weapon, no “right” to use armor-piercing bullets—just the right to defend yourself against intruders. And as Stephen King famously said: “if you can’t kill an intruder with ten rounds, you need to go back to the shooting range.”

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

Reasonable gun control. Comparing hitler and stalin to gun regulation is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen.

| Side: We need gun control
5 points

We have gun control.

Now, I suppose the argument from gun control advocates is as scattered as arguments from gun advocates. There is little to no consensus on either side on what level of gun control is "right."

Here are some things to note, however. The weapon used at the Elementary School and Movie theater was an AR-15. It is a semi-automatic assault rifle. As assface has pointed out in an earlier debate, this weapon is no more dangerous than your standard hunting rifle. It doesn't "spray" bullets. Automatic weapons are not the most tactical nor are they the most reliable. The military rarely even uses automatic weapons. It really does depend.

So killers, either trained by the government or just lunatics, tend to not use automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are for non-skilled people who would rather unload a magazine and make sure they hit their target. They are also for people like me, who enjoy guns as a novelty. And they are even for hunters, who are about killing the shit out of their prey.

In general, when it comes to preventing these horrendous mass murders, going after automatic weapons is pointless. Going after all assault rifles is only in the right track if you get rid of all hunting rifles as well. However, assault rifles are RARELY used in gun related homicides. Handguns are. Handguns, in fact, are the most dangerous type of guns, for they are easy to conceal and not as expensive. However, they are the most reliable for women who need to fend off attackers for they are small and easy to use (depending on the handgun, of course.) Assault rifles are big and bulky, very difficult to conceal, and for a woman being attacked not very accessible or usable. In general, your average American prefers handguns because of its affordability and easy to carry. You are allowed to keep a handgun on your persons in states with right-to-carry laws, which is good for people whom are afraid of being attacked in dark alleys or other areas where they are at risk.

So what kind of gun control would prevent a mass murder like what we've seen in the past few years? If we had a nationwide ban of all guns, it's possible that it would be difficult for lunatics, especially those who aren't very well-connected, to get their weapons right away. A killer like John Holmes wouldn't have been stopped, for he definitely knew his shit (considering how he even rigged his entire apartment with explosives, which I will get more into detail later,) however the recent murder at the Elementary school could possibly have been prevented. Or, it would have merely delayed it. Best case scenario, the kid would have only killed his family and maybe only a few kids. Some of them would have possibly escaped, considering he didn't lock the door. In total, we could have seen a few less deaths overall, or maybe none of them could have died. It's very possible that this kid would have not been able to chop up or beat the life out of these kids after doing it to his family, since it is far more intimate to use blunt or sharp weapons than guns.

But what about explosives? They are not hard to come by, especially if you have a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook. This kid might not have been able to make devastating explosives, but John Holmes did. He didn't use them to kill those people at the theater because he had his AR-15, a grim but important fact to note. Now, rigging an entire theater to blow MAY take time, but not that much time. Maybe he could have gotten caught, but if not he would have killed even more.

And then we look at the murders at Virginia Tech. roughly 30 killed with handguns.

So an all out ban and "War on Guns" is really the only thing we could try to prevent shootings. Explosives would become the new weapon of choice for people hoping to get a lot of kills in short times, but as a country I suppose we'd deal with it then.

However, maybe disarming the populace isn't the best choice.

1. No guarantee that this will work. Prohibition rarely works in this country, and guns are pretty much everywhere in this country. There is little to nothing we can do to get rid of the guns that are already here. Not only do guns get smuggled in here, we smuggle guns everywhere else. America is a major gun nation, and a "War on Guns" would be a full-scale war that may be even more detrimental than the War on Drugs. Especially since we have enough trust issues with our police and military.

2. Disarming the populace won't necessarily make the people safer. People have used guns in self defense for many [different cases]. More people use guns for self-defense than they do for murder. A dick load more. It's very easy for a murderer to use a knife instead of a gun, for murder tends to be by surprise. Guns for self-defense, on the other hand, are either in fire-fights or something of the such. Not to mention it's a lot harder to apprehend someone if you only have a knife, especially if you know nothing about knife fighting.

I had more reasons, but this is pretty long already.

So what CAN we do to prevent these massacres? Two main things, luckily:

1. Loosen gun control. Gun free zones are basically areas where you can't defend yourself or your family. School shootings are terrible and scary, but fear of the guns instead of the people doing the shooting is more of a problem than the tools of murder. If teachers were armed, they'd be far more likely to prevent a school shooting... like in Israel. Israel is a more dangerous place, so they keep their teachers armed. It has proven to be of good results. There's the fear of unstable teachers, but that's all it is... fear. Fear, the thing that keeps us from protecting ourselves. If a teacher wants to kill his kids, he's not going to listen to the "gun-free" rule put in place. However, another armed teacher could prevent him from doing too much damage. It's more of a fact, that the greatest threat to a mass murderer is another person with a gun.

2. Focus on the Psychology of these people. We focus so much on shifting blame, be it gun control, violent video games, or heavy metal, and we never think about the fact that these people were unstable and created by society in the first place. there are probably so many preventative measures we could have made in raising our children or spreading media that would stop these spree killings, but instead we seem to only provoke it by spreading the fear and paranoia. A lot of these people are bullied, abused, or simply not right in the head. They find that a mass murder is exactly what they need to get their emotions on the media. We as a populace eat this shit up. Whenever a tragedy occurs we start saying "omg, what a monster, he's not human, he's evil," and avoid the fact that he was human and that we are all just as capable. Maybe our Psychology isn't fucked up like his, but something made it fucked up in the first place. It's not the devil, it's not that he's an asshole, it's something to do both Neurologically and Socially that is causing this.

This is going on for awhile, so I'll cut it short here. I hope I've made my point well.

| Side: We need our guns

Ditto. Whatever you said. It is long so..., it must be good ;)

| Side: We need our guns
2 points

shit, i meant to put this as my source for self-defense and gun control.

sorry.

| Side: We need our guns
2 points

This is so true, especially that last paragraph on psychology. The media fails to realise that when they shovel shit like "he was an evil monster and anyone like him should be killed", they immediately alienate anyone who has the potential to be in the same state of mind as him, and become more likely to do terrible things like Columbine/Aurora/Newtown or whatever.

I'm not saying we need to encourage these people to think the way they do, but a little less aggression and vitriol in our media would be more effective than a million gun control laws.

| Side: We need our guns

It should be obvious that we need more guns, not less, less is the reason that got us into this mess with GUN FREE ZONE, this is a welcome mat for mass shootings.

| Side: We need our guns
2 points

We don't need gun control we need people control. We need to make sure that people who want to kill don't get guns. In the case of newtown he got the gun from a family member but this idea would have stopped the shootings at the Seik Temple and at the Movie Theatre showing Batman.

People want to ban assult rifles because they think they cause crime. If i was a criminal i would get it illagly if i wanted it. And if i couldn't get that i would get a M1 Carbine or another rifle that is simiautomatic. They want to ban assultrifles because they look scary. One could do just as much damage with another rifle or a pistol.

| Side: We need our guns
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
2 points

Adolf says Hi, welcome to fascism.

People control? Seriously?

What next? The NSA can wiretap my phone and monitor my internet usage just in case i might be planning a terrorist attack?

By the way, if you want to stop the unstable from getting firearms, they probably shouldn't be available for legal purchase on every other streetcorner. so yeah. Gun regulation is necessary.

The fact that the weapons could be found, despite being banned, isn't the issue. We know that. The point is that someone a little fucked up on meth or some shit can't walk into walmart and walk out with a beretta and a hundred rounds of ammunition and go slaughter his ex girlfriend because she said "hi" one time.

| Side: We need gun control
Oiden(392) Disputed
1 point

A meth addict can walk into walmart and buy a beretta and shoot his gf.

You know there is a waiting peroid for buying a gun correct?

| Side: We need our guns
2 points

Honestly, this was closer to what I wanted to see than gun control. This shooting was the result of irresponsible gun ownership. The woman should have had her guns locked up, not out in the open. The woman knew her son was mentally unstable, and should have taken the initiative to not give him the opportunity to have access to the guns without her supervision. I am sorry to say it, but it is kind of her fault. We need to preach gun responsibility, teach owners to lock up their guns, or hide them away, not have them easily obtainable for whoever wishes to pick them up. Gun control was not the issue here, lack of responsibility was.

| Side: We need our guns
piede(8) Disputed
2 points

Indeed, this was a result of irresponsible gun ownership. Which just goes to show the lack of gun control is letting our guns fall into the hands of unexperienced and unqualified gun owners. If we put regulations in place and regulated our guns so they don't fall into the wrong hands we could prevent more accidents like this happening.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

Yes because let us ALL go by what they think! By your logic, we should purge all those agaisnt the country because the hold a threat to the glorious leader! (Stalin)

On a serious note, though, think of Texas. Lowest crime rate- yet everyone has a gun. Having more gun control is like punishing someone because they knew Stalin.

| Side: We need our guns

All I have to say is ̿̿̿ ̿' ̿'\̵͇̿̿\з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿ ̿

| Side: We need our guns

What the hell is that symbol?-------------------------------------

| Side: We need our guns

A guy holding up 2 guns ¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿̿

http://en.emotiworld.com/

| Side: We need our guns

This debate is getting old. I've seen it on several other sites. I say just arm everyone, give them some training, then let the problems resolve themselves.

| Side: We need our guns
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

and the first thing people like me would do is throw that gun away. So what does that accomplish? the mass murder of everyone who refuses to bear arms and the appearance of some kind of sick and twisted anarchist state where the last man standing gets to rule the world? Sure, alot of problems solved all at once. Poverty disappears, world hunger no longer relevant, the environment has time to repair itself with no more human interference. But humanity dies. That's it, we're done. All because some genius decided to arm everyone.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

Any gun control is unconstitutional. So no, guns should not be banned nor should any type of ban be in place.

2nd amendment: 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.

any law to limit type of gun used, owned, or banned guns, ammo, magazine size, etc. is by definition INFRINGEMENT of the 2nd amendment because the government is telling its people whats ok and not ok. where in any of that ideology of gun control laws does that spell freedom?

once the infringement begins with the 2nd amendment where will it stop? government says movies and video games are to violent and ban them. big macs, soda, and fries make you to fat so we'll ban those.

Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.

Criminals do not follow laws. That is BY DEFINITION a criminal!!! They will steal guns, get them from the black market, or from any illegal shipments from other countries if they have to.

Most of these mass shootings happen in so called "gun free zones". where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others. These gun free zones like schools, hospitals, post offices, most government areas, as well as buisnesses and public conventions that post no gun allowed signs, are basically advertising to these criminals, psychos, and mass murders that this will be a easy place to slaughter people because no one can defend themselves!!!

how often do you hear of a mass shooting or gun related firefight at a place where there are known 100's of gun carriers like gun shows, police stations, or nra conventions? Because criminals know some people will be packing a gun there and it will not be easy. there are thousands of stories where armed citizens stop criminals, in many cases without firing a shot and just showing the gun. The liberal media today mostly just films the major gun massacres and shootings because its big news, gets peoples attention, ratings, and promotes their agenda for gun control.

| Side: We need our guns
TimelordROOK(94) Disputed
1 point

Patriot, your right to keep and bear arms is not so that you can blow away the guy your wife cheated on you with. It's to stop an oppressive government from enslaving you. The stupid thing is, you're looking the most progressive government America has had in ages in the face and saying "Nah, bro, we don't like that. Fuck safety, i want my guns for all the WRONG reasons."

Obama isn't trying to infringe your rights, he's trying to save you from yourselves.

| Side: We need gun control
1 point

every dictatorship and communist country started by taking away guns. Hitler did so while surrounded by children, saying it was for the good of the children. True, mentally disabled and disturbed people and felons convicted of Violent crimes should not have them, we have rights. The 2nd amendment people!!! We need to keep our guns, because we are losing rights one by one. The right to bear arms is needed or else the police and army would be the only people to have them. Oddly enough, there is a picture of President Obama Shooting a rifle at the white house.

| Side: We need our guns
1 point

Disarmed People = Are Dominated People

Simple as that so do we really want to ban guns?

| Side: We need our guns


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.