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.
I think we need to be regulating excessive debates about gun regulation. I swear every time I log on someones made a new gun debate every day since the recent shooting. Use the old ones, people; you're all discussing the same damn thing, anyways.
Too lazy to wade through the old arguments other people have already had... at least I am. Same could be said for most of the religion debates too, but I still enjoy them and sometimes a new gem of a conversation is born. Sometimes.
There's a lot to be said about religion. There's a lot to be said about guns, too, but these debate only ever focus on one aspect of firearms: regulation. It would be like if every religious debate on here (and there are a few) was talking specifically about Catholic baptism or something like that. If gun debates like "AK47 vs M1A1" came up frequently I wouldn't be complaining; but these debates are all addressing the exact same issue. That can't be said for the religious debates on this site. Not as generally as it can be said for the gun debates, anyways.
And there's also something to be said for the frequency. I should never see 3 debates about gun regulation out of the 5 debates listed in "popular debates." That's just boring and trite and shows that the people who make these repetitious debates don't look into the subject on this site, first.
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.
Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws. People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own. If you aren't regulating the guns in the hands of the people who are the problem, then you are not solving the problem you are trying to solve with guns, therefore, we should not implement more regulations.
Regulating guns only prevents the law-abiding from having them and does nothing to prevent them from falling into the hands who abuse them. Moreover, gun regulation is a superficial approach to an underlying problem. The state of mental health care is abysmal, and it seems logical to me that increasing social understanding of mental illness and health conditions as well as treatment and support for those experiencing mental ill-health would go a lot further in preventing gun violence.
I think so to. I found out that the person who shot up Virginia Tech was actually on drugs, but had stopped taking them. You know the commercials for anti-depressants say that a side-effect of stoppage in dose can lead to suicidal thoughts. They tested him and found no drugs in his system, even though there should have been. Being a little more careful and assertive on taking the drugs wold help. And almost every mass shooting in America since the 20th century was done by mental people.
I was not actually aware of the details about the Virginia Tech shooter, but it does not surprise me much. A lot of people living with mental illness or disorders end up with partial treatment because the system is so inadequate, and this is compounded by social ignorance surrounding mental health. I think more attention to the mental health crisis in the U.S. (and elsewhere) would reduce the amount of violence generally (not only gun violence). It would increase the likelihood of early intervention and diagnosis which makes treatment more effective.
Regulating guns only prevents the law-abiding from having them and does nothing to prevent them from falling into the hands who abuse them.
Regulate the manufacture of weapons, offer incentives for people to turn in their illegal weapons and offer amnesty, and regulate the manufacture of ammunition.
The state of mental health care is abysmal, and it seems logical to me that increasing social understanding of mental illness and health conditions as well as treatment and support for those experiencing mental ill-health would go a lot further in preventing gun violence.
Regulate the manufacture of weapons, offer incentives for people to turn in their illegal weapons and offer amnesty, and regulate the manufacture of ammunition.
I think regulating manufacture is a better approach, but I am unconvinced that this would actually address the problem. The idea behind it, if I am not mistaken, is to dry up the supply. However, the sheer number of guns in circulation (legal and black market) within the U.S. and nearby countries would make such an approach rather impractical. Someone who wanted a gun could still get one, and I do not know that regulation would greatly impact the cost of acquisition. Perhaps I am too skeptical however; I really do not have the numbers to have a very strong opinion either way.
Glad we are in agreement about mental health however. :)
I don't wish to imply that I believe these measure would solve the problem; only to help in the process. I would really like to see the mental health issue addressed, as well as ensuring comprehensive education for all fire-arms owners.
I live in the south, and I've lived around guns my entire life. I wouldn't want any of my friends, family, or neighbors to go without their guns. However, there are plenty of folks 'round these parts whom I wouldn't trust with a gun. Maybe they've received training; perhaps they have not.
But I digress; there are many causes of gun violence and if we as a nation don't start addressing the entire problem, rather than just bickering about how many/how big guns should be, it will only get worse.
Like I have stated in other debates. I believe in less regulation. Gun control has killed over 175 million people since the 20th century. I don't want America added to that statistic.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated...
------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
none of them banned weapons, you are blabbing aging also you should check how affordable weapons were. If rifle costs equivalent of present $50000 and single round $120 you will think twice if keeping rifle is better than few cows. Uncontrolled weapon distribution like in Sudan, Somalia or US showed of as a horrible mistake and kills incredible number of people in present time.
You are deluded illiterate idiot, exactly the kind of person who shouldn't have access to guns.
If you suggest the government ban guns, if you trust your government to be the only ones allowed to have guns, you are naive. This is not an attack on you, think about it for real.
That's what gun control is, its banning and regulating guns. All of those countries banned guns.
If rifle costs equivalent of present $50000 and single round $120
There would have to be a lot of inflation for prices to hit that high. The average price of an illegal AK is around 500.
You are deluded illiterate idiot, exactly the kind of person who shouldn't have access to guns.
Deluded? I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to the point that you think that mass murder in Russia, Germany China, Turkey, Uganda, Cambodia and Guatemala are just a delusion.
You are really idiot, in Russia's 1930 there we no weapon control because there were no weapons, very expensive in that times, some people could have some percussive weapons, no ban on them.
in 1911 there was no Turkey but Ottoman Empire and you could have as many weapons as you wanted to have, no limits.
...all of those you mentioned are BULLSHITS.
I also know where did you copy-paste it from, why did you also didn't copy paste those replies that completely destroyed that idiotic claim? Have you forgot about them? Should I paste them in and make it copy paste tournament?
Let's start with this little thing, tht your slamm brain somehow missed.
Somalia and Sudan are wild, un-cultured countries, run by pirates and Islamists. Everyone of these countries I mentioned did ban weapons, that's what gun control is. Your ignorance has blinded you. And that was an improper use of illiterate you uncultured heathen! :) And I have already had access to weapons for 12 years now. I haven't killed anyone.
I was talking about my previous post. The one with the Soviet Union, Guatamala, etc. A citizen of any of those countries couldn't have a gun of any kind.
I'm from former Soviet Union, yes you could have a gun, you've just had to be a member of communist party, there could be some very local restrictions but in general you could have handguns and rifles you couldn't have explosives like grenades or RPGs.
I'm too young, I do not remember too much but other members of my family do. I remember shooting sewer rats with revolver and calling policeman "comrade" :D
Weapons were OK unless you have been to much politically "active" on the "wrong" side. You also couldn't own "western" guns.
Wow. That's interesting. I'm not kidding that's pretty cool. Now, I just don't like the feeling of having the gov. say when or when can't I own a gun. Or that I need to belong to the party. Or if I'm on the wrong side. But you could own like AK-47's or Mosin Nagants, just not Winchesters or Berettas?
Everyone was member of "the party", most of people with the "red book" wasn't even communists. Western stuff or just $$$ was more less illegal you couldn't buy western weapons, if police would found Western gun in your property or car they would most likely declare you a spy and after two weeks of "interrogation" of you and most likely some your family members you would confess, or commit a "suicide". This was in the times of "Normalization", after that (1980+) they would most likely ask just for some cash and let you go... but this depends on country. This is how it worked in former Czechoslovakia, Poland and East Germany, in Romania, Russia and so it was much worse but you could have a weapon but wast majority of people couldn't afford anyway, you could have food for couple of days for one bullet.
System was extremely corrupted, every single time you went for something to any government office for example for building permit or anything else you had to leave there an envelope, without that the visit was just pointless.
If you did this on right place with enough thick envelope you could get a stamp that allowed to own automatic weapons or western weapons or even a tank for "study purposes".
People weren't interested in Western weapons anyway, they never seen them and the only info they get was propaganda where it looked like garbage anyway.. :D
News from West you've get were only Hurricanes, bank robberies, accidents, movies about underground an so.. For example once in middle of some shot about bank robbery in US they played a scene from Rambo where he jumps from swamp and start killing people with machine gun.. for people like my parents who lived 40 years in that system everything from west looked quite evil :D
Eh, I don't know. I don't want to kill anyone. The only reason I would kill someone is in self-defense when my life was threatened or in service in the military.
Soviet Russia was a good reason, especially during Stalin's reign. He killed over 20 million of his own people. Criminals only had to worry about the government, and dissidents against Stalin couldn't defend themselves. Israel is an excellent place. Almost all citizens are armed because of the threat of terrorism and Palestinian hate crime against them, as well as being surrounded by countries that hate them. Even the teachers are armed. Detroit and Chicago are good examples. Chicago has the highest homicide rate in the country by guns, yet at the same time has the toughest firearms regulations other than D.C.
Soviet Russia was a good reason, especially during Stalin's reign.
So, America is Soviet Russia and Obama is Stalin?
Again, a totally hyperbolic and unrealistic assumption. You're terrified of Federal Government and you're sure they're trying to disarm the public. What you seem to be ignoring, however, is that this isn't a call for gun-control originating from the Federal Government; it is a call from the citizenry.
Israel is an excellent place.
Move there.
Chicago has the highest homicide rate in the country by guns
They also have rampant poverty and poor education programs; it's related.
Did I say that? Obama is Stalin? America is Soviet Russia? I don't believe I did. If you think so, whatever man. And if the call for guns was from the citizenry, then why is Feinstein and other congressman leading the charge? Some radicals are using this shooting as a casus belli on firearm control. Unfortunatley, Feinstein is listening to them. Israel is a nice place, but I said excellent meaning an excellent example. If poverty and poor education cause the high homicide rates, why don't we concentrate on that?
Soviet Russia was a good reason, especially during Stalin's reign.
In the context of this conversation on gun-control, invoking that imagery has a clear implication. You're comparing America's legislative actions on gun control to those of the former Soviet Union.
And if the call for guns was from the citizenry, then why is Feinstein and other congressman leading the charge?
Because they are listening to their constituents and (in a rare moment of competence) doing their job.
If poverty and poor education cause the high homicide rates, why don't we concentrate on that?
Oh, I would very much like to see those issues addressed. High homicide rates have multiple causes, among them poverty and poor education. We must address the entire problem instead of focusing on only gun-control.
Well, what I'm just finding out is that the Soviets did let people own guns, but only those who were in the party and not political dissidents. I don't like having that. Feinstein is listening to her party, not the people. The majority of the people believe in staying status quo, and some believe in less regulation. Now, I admit that the margin is closing, but it's not there yet. Her job is to listen to the majority, not just her supporters.
The majority of the people believe in staying status quo, and some believe in less regulation.
If it was such a clear majority, they should be able to use their clout to end this fairly quickly. But, there isn't such a majority. If there were, we would likely not be having this debate.
There is a majority, it's just the congressmen don't listen, like they always do. We are fighting to stop this, as hard as we can. Many of the congressmen don't listen to the facts provided by their own people. They just want to do what they want.
There is a majority, it's just the congressmen don't listen, like they always do.
That's the fault of the citizenry. They shouldn't have voted for Congresspeople who wouldn't listen. Also, if they're consistently acting against your interests... gasp MAYBE THE MAJORITY ISN'T ON YOUR SIDE!
Oh, boy. You mean the crusades? Those haven't happened for over 600 years. We're more civilized now. That is ancient history. Do you see more active violence from Christians, or against Christians? Christians have already condemned the crusades.
We're more civilized now. That is ancient history.
Now; at this moment. That can change, and people like Fred Phelps are trying to make that happen. Evangelical pastors claiming natural disasters are the work of the lord are trying to turn the world into a theocratic regime.
Fred Phelps and the Westoboro church are condemned by everyone, including many Christians. They are horrible people, and nobody takes them seriously. Radicals like them are a rare breed of crazies. And if you say the crusades are about due, man, that's just crazy! But whatever floats your boat.
Says the Atheist who attacks Christianity. We are on the defensive, but mostly against people like you. We go on the offensive by converting and teaching people about the word of Christ. Islam and Christianity can live peacefully. The problem is that Muslim radicals don't want to talk and they kill and abuse christians all over the world. Christianity is the most oppressed religion in the world.
Christianity is the most oppressed religion. I thank myself that I can live in a country where I am not oppressed. But the Chinese, African, and Middle Eastern Christians aren't so lucky. What is funny is that the Chinese government abuses their Christian population, yet they are the fastest growing church in the world. Says the Christian defending his faith.
It may be on par with Islam (they oppress other sects of Islam, after all) and Judaism, but it isn't more oppressed than any of the Abrahamic religions. And the only reason those religions are oppressed is because they all have a tendency to instill themselves as governmental institutions. So, it's not actually oppression that's occurring, but resistance to assimilation.
What I'm actually saying is active oppression against Christians. Not the Islamists oppressing each other via government. Active oppression is killing, raping, and imprisoning Christians based completely on their faith.
By Christians?! Please! When have Christians been oppressive to Muslims in the last few years? Last I saw the Muslims were the ones blowing themselves up and declaring Jihad.
No, I actually mean within the last few years. Go back to the turn of the century if you want. The crusades were a mistake a long time ago, and the pope got his but kicked for it by Saladin and the Seljuks and the Turks.
Most Christians aren't violent, but neither are the majority of Muslims. Radical Islam has a stronger and larger presence in modern times, but this isn't a guarantee of lasting Christian peace.
I'm not seeing any sources to support the author's opinions. For all I know he could just be ranting. And if you say most of us Christians are not violent, then why are you blaming us for oppression?
And if you say most of us Christians are not violent, then why are you blaming us for oppression?
The same reason Christians blame Muslims for their religious violence. Doesn't feel too nice, does it? Christians in this country* are hell-bent on legislating their religious convictions and forcing their beliefs on the entire nation; how is that not oppression? Christians in this country bawl every December about their oppression and the ever-lasting "war on Christmas," while the other holidays that occur during that season almost never get mentioned.
Christians may have it bad in some parts of the world, but here they are a thorn in the side of the public. Here, they are the oppressors; not the oppressed.
Since Christians have no qualms with painting Islam as a horrible, horrible religion, why should I extend you such a courtesy? Have your religion and keep your faith, but the moment you start pushing a faith-based social conservative agenda (and I'm not accusing you of such a thing) you become an aggressor.
We are not a thorn in the country. We are a thorn to you and atheists. You just can't get along with us, blaming us for oppression on others to justify yourselves. Frankly I'm tired of it.
We are not a thorn in the country. We are a thorn to you and atheists.
Now you're implying atheists are sub-citizens. Frankly I'm tired of it. So are we, and fills my heart with pride to know I'm, if not convincing you, wearing at you.
You just can't get along with us How many people have ever been killed in the name of atheism? Can't answer Stalin; political power grab. Same with Mao. The answer? Zero. I've never physically attacked anyone for their religious beliefs. In light of these facts, it seems that atheists are much easier to get along with than Christians.
It's a well known fact that Wade Michael Page was involved in white-supremacy groups who claim that Christians were obligated to preserve a "pure race."
We would be speaking Japanese right now if the U.S. had gun control the time of Pearl Harbor. It would have been a ignorant decision for Japan to attack the states knowing that homeowners were equipped. Having gun control would make us vulnerable for countries to attack us. Despite of the shooting in Connecticut, which is why this subject is in debate, we would be risking more lives. We need to protect this country as a whole.
I think it needs too be lower I have always been a firm believer of the saying " Guns dont kill people, people kill people" Just because there are nuts out there who abuse the right to own a gun does not mean we should take them away from sane and law abiding citizens.
We need less regulations(que the anger). Simply, if the headmaster of the school in America where the shooting happened had a gun he'd be able to shoot him and end this madness. Look at Texas, with the lowest crime rate in America. You don't do anything there, because you don't know who has a gun.
