CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:65
Arguments:81
Total Votes:75
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I keep hearing the Left tell us how nations who ban guns have a smaller % of gun deaths. (54)

Debate Creator

FromWithin(7683) pic



I keep hearing the Left tell us how nations who ban guns have a smaller % of gun deaths.

So lets take your excuses of why we should lose our gun rights, and apply them to other instruments of death.

In nations where they do not allow alcohol, there are FAR FEWER drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths. Does that matter to you when it comes to your opposition to banning alcohol?

If we mandated a maximum of 35 miles per hour speed limit on all roads, we would save thousands of lives each year! Do you want to mandate such speed limits to "save lives"? Nahhhh

If we made laws that said you must ride a bike to work if you live within ten miles, would you support that law to "save lives"?
Of all the things we could do to "save lives", why is it that Guns are the only things that gun control fanatics worry about?

You are hypocrites and care nothing about "saving lives". You are supporters of Big Government controlling the people, and taking our guns makes that easier to do.

Add New Argument

Countries who take less immigrants and have less gang activity have less gun deaths.

George_K(2) Disputed Banned
2 points

Fact: Where there are more guns there is more gun-related violence, how you can make a correlation to immigration is beyond me.

Australia:

Immigrants as a proportion of entire population: 27.7%

Gun deaths per 100,000 per year: 0.93

USA:

Immigrants as a proportion of entire population: 14.3%

Gun deaths per 100,000 per year: 10.54

1 point

Fact: Where there are more guns there is more gun-related violence, how you can make a correlation to immigration is beyond me.

Because most people in gangs aren't white. And most gun homicides by far are gang on gang. It's like magic. Or are you suggesting that it's just blacks...

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
0 points

Let me repeat, nations that do not allow alcohol, have far fewer alcohol related deaths.

YOUR POINT?

Are you ready to ban alcohol to save lives?

No? Spare us all your gun hating rhetoric.

2 points

In states in the US with more gun laws there are more shootings and vice versa. Same with other countries. Paris had the strictest gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws. This is retarded. Cite a source that shows that countries with more gun laws have less violence.

Exactly, you are talking common sense, but Liberals spend their lives in this cultist ideology whereby facts are irrelevent.

1 point

I don't live in America so I don't really care that much but facts are facts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/34996604

I live in the UK and I feel safe even though I legally can't have a gun or knife on me in public. Because I know the law applies to everyone. No, not all police officers here hold a gun either. You know they're experienced if they have one though. Again, I wouldn't feel safe if guns were just given out willy nilly for any old bozo to get a hold of.

I know the main argument is "defence" but what do you have to defend against if guns aren't even accessible to the idiots that would use them against you?

outlaw60(15500) Clarified
1 point

Excellent so how do terrorist in the UK get guns when you citizens cannot legally have a gun ?

Vermink(1944) Clarified
1 point

We haven't had a recent terrorist attack using guns. Our latest was a British man in a van, before that another van where the 3 culprits started using knives on people and then the Manchester suicide bombing.

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

WOW, I'm getting tired of debating idiots. We watch on the news every day when terrorists are killing people in European countries that do not allow guns. The police are never there to prevent the killings you complete waste of time.

Criminals will get the guns as did people get alcohol during prohibition. If they don't get guns, they will kill with illegal bombs.

The gun is not the problem. Sociaists and Liberals who allow terrorists into their nations is the problem.

Vermink(1944) Disputed
1 point

Oh my God, do you literally get all your information from propaganda? You talk like you literally know nothing. Something goes wrong? Oh it's definitely those lefts messing up again. So are you saying America has never had a terrorist issue because you have guns? Because I think you're having a memory block. What with 9/11, multiple mass shootings (which hasn't been an issue in the UK) and rampant gun violence. Have guns stopped those? No. In a few cases they caused them. Proof in the link I attached if you even looked at it.

We're talking about gun violence not terrorists. But if we are talking about terrorists then we'll look at our latest terror attack that was done in a van by a British man on innocent Muslims. The one before that was an attack where a van ran through a group of people and then they used knifes to kill people. Police got to the scene very quickly and handled the situation. Then of course the very unfortunate Manchester attack but even if people had a gun what would it have done? It was a suicide bombing, the culprit was dead before anyone would have had time to react.

No I don't think the gun is the problem, stupid people being able to get a hold of them is the issue. With your laws being so lax on the issue you will always have the issue, and that's a political issue on your side, not the lefts. If you're going to openly support a pile of crap then at least stand by it and take responsibility for it.

George_K(2) Banned
1 point

The difference between guns and alcohol, cars etc. is that guns are specifically made to kill, and are extremely effective at doing it. Obviously, there are plenty of laws that could be introduced to "save lives" that aren't, because, although lives would be saved by mandating ~a maximum of 35 miles per hour speed limit on all roads~, it would have an overall negative effect on society. Tightening gun regulations? Not so much.

I will never understand the freakish obsession that Americans have with guns. It's insane. Here in Ireland, not only is it impossible to buy a gun (unless you're a farmer, then you need a shotgun for animals), but even our police force aren't armed, which leads to a much more peaceful and less-violent atmosphere in the country overall.

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
0 points

Here's a newsflash for you. If it were not for NATO nations, Ireland would be communist if there was anything the Communists wanted.

Your nation is protected by America's guns whether you understand this or not.

So in all of your deception, tell us why lowering the speed limit would be an overall negative effect on society. I thought saving tens of thousands of lives each year would be a nice effect?

Your excues are as clear as mud. I see all the time where a home owner shot an intruder in his house and saved his family from harm. That's a nice effect.

The gun is made for protection, not to kill. Every weapon since the begining of time was made for protection against enemies.

George_K(2) Disputed Banned
1 point

"Here's a newsflash for you. If it were not for NATO nations, Ireland would be communist if there was anything the Communists wanted."

I have no idea what you're on about here. Are you referring to the Cold War? If so, I'm not sure you realise where Ireland is. We were too busy facilitating priest rape during that time.

"So in all of your deception, tell us why lowering the speed limit would be an overall negative effect on society."

Well, in many places, yes, it does make sense to lower the speed limit if it's considered too high. You were asking why I don't support lowering the speed limit to 35 across the country. I don't know, because it would take loner to get to places?

This is just a variation on the classic gambit of "well cars kill people, axes kill people, but you don't want to ban those". You're missing the point, axes and cars do not primarily exist for inflicting fatal wounds on people. Guns do.

Yeah, there are plenty of examples when " a home owner shot an intruder in his house and saved his family from harm", but generally the extent of that harm would have been that the intruder has a gun of their own. If neither of them had guns to begin with, wouldn't that reduce the risk of the situation altogether?

1 point

In nations where they do not allow alcohol, there are FAR FEWER drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths. Does that matter to you when it comes to your opposition to banning alcohol?

It's a good argument for banning alcohol yes. There are other arguments for keeping it however. I guess considering both sides of an argument and forming a moderate view is a little beyond you. Fortunately it isn't beyond your president who believes that killing some babies is ok but not as few as you dom

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

Yes, it's a good argument for banning guns. There are other arguments for keeping guns. IT'S CALLED FREEDOMS!

Yes, we have people who believe killing some babies is ok, and then we have people who support killing any babies no matter their age up to birth.

Most people possess the simple humanity to try and have limits on the inhumanity versus NO RESTRICTIONS as does the Democrat Party.

There will be people who possess humanity and hold their nose while voting for the lessor of two evils.

Atrag(5445) Disputed
1 point

True the Democrats are more Pro abortion than Republicans but if I believed as strongly about it as you do I would support either. You should think about that.

0 points

Americans love our freedom and we hate a big controlling Government telling us how to live.

For the sake of our freedoms, we accept the increased risk of deaths.

The Left also accepts those risks, UNLESS OF COURSE, it comes to guns. Then all of a sudden they are willing to give up YOUR freedoms for the sake of saving lives.

Ask yourself why that is?

1 point

Hopefully over time enough of you guys will kill each other off. :)

Amarel(4987) Disputed
2 points

The high homocide rate is mostly due to inner city gang violence wherein the shooter does not and cannot legally own a firearm. Those are not the people who are angrily demanding that their gun rights be maintained (they most likely have already lost them). As such, the people arguing for gun rights are not likely to be killed off or even be involved in a shooting.

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

Hopefully after a time when the Democrat Party keeps losing elections, fools will realize that their socialistic utopia is a pure sham and only the most brainwashed cultists will still push it's agenda.

Hornet(34) Disputed
1 point

Why are you referring to the left and Americans as if they are mutually exclusive?

Quite hosently I wouldn't have a problem with banning alcohol, but your point about cars is less valid, as a low speed limit is impractical, whereas banning guns doesn't make every day tasks more difficult/time consuming.

The main reason I hear for people owning a gun is defence, but if your police is that bad, the whole police system needs increased funding.

WinstonC(1226) Disputed
1 point

"The main reason I hear for people owning a gun is defence, but if your police is that bad, the whole police system needs increased funding."

Police generally only come after a crime has occurred because they can't be everywhere at once.

outlaw60(15500) Clarified
1 point

The Left banned alcohol and up spring the Mob. Too many guns for the Left to try to ban

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

You can not possibly be that stupid can you?

The police most times come after the killing is done.

How on earth is a cop going to get to your home before the intruder has already killed you?

Maybe you missed it as we watch over in Europe every week. The police MOST TIMES get there after the terrorist killings have already occurred.

So I guess the inconveinence of Guns owners to no longer be able to target shoot, or hunt, or sleep peaceably knowing they can protect their family, is not as important as your practicallity and conveinence of driving faster speed limits?

So I guess all those lives that you say you are concerned over, are not that important to you when it comes to effecting your enjoyment in life.

Here's an idea. GIVE IT UP, YOU ARE SPEWING UTTER GARBAGE! These Professors and Liberal elites have dumbed you down. Use your brain if it is still functioning.

0 points

I wouldn't mind regulation on alcohol consumption. It shouldn't be banned though. Wine is the only thing that pairs perfectly with cheese.

In California, they are improving metro systems so that people would use less cars. They implemented public bike systems as well. I mean there is a lot infrastructure to build in order to gradually avoid using the car but liberals are voting to do so. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are hypocrites who take the car to drive for 5-10 minutes. But I wouldn't say that it is the majority. At least where I am now it isn't. California is a full of healthnut. Driving makes them fat so they won't drive the car. I means it's for the wrong reasons but they won't complain if there were regulations.

I personally hate cars and driving terrifies me. I walk or bike or share a ride (if it is really too far).

So as a socialist, I say yes to regulations on alcohol ( it's bad for the skin anyway ;) ) and yes to no cars!

outlaw60(15500) Clarified
1 point

Gyp you have made known your a socialist very interesting. So Gyp how are the metro systems going to come to be improved without fossil fuels ?

1 point

Hi! I am. Well I am a socialist here. In Europe I would be a centrist.

Well, what a great question :) actually , I am looking to be hired with a company who want to implement the Hyperloop. It's hasn't been done yet but there many projects in development. I will let you read about it. It is a really cool reading. The movement is basically based on electromagnetic force.

FromWithin(7683) Disputed
1 point

I say move to a socialist nation, and allow freedom loving Americans to live their lives as they choose. We understand the risks of driving, and alcohol, and guns, etc. but what we understand even more is the risk of Liberals like yourself trying to forcing your ideology on us all.

You are a controlling PC fanatic who thinks you have the right to force us all to live as you say so.

Gypsee(261) Disputed
1 point

Ohh FromWithin you managed to finally cross a line with me. :-(

I am not forcing. Why on earth would I want to force you ? I mean listen, if having a gun means freedom for you then fine. But as the other person without a gun, who lives in your society, as an American who worked hard and contributed to the development of this country , I have an equal voice. I was born and raised here. My father fought for this country. My grandfather too. I will too. It is my home and it isn't wrong to try and make it feel more safe. I won't force. It is idiotic to even believe that I can force my thought onto others. If that is possible, that means that the person is completely stupid. I can try and convince people to join my fight but if they disagree, fine. But this is as much my home as it is yours so, no ! I will stay here.

Antrim(1297) Disputed
1 point

Even though you are clearly obsessed with alcohol do try to stay ''on topic'.

The thread was on gun control, not booze nor public transport.

Are you mad?

Gypsee(261) Disputed
1 point

It is about the inconsistencies of liberal ideas. FromWithin did mention limits on alcohol and driving in his text. He did it to point out that liberals fight for unregulated driving and alcohol consumption but want gun control.

He pointed out liberal hypocrisy and bullshit of them wanting to regulate gun for the safety of others.

Basically, ( FromWithin is welcome to tell me if I misunderstood ), if liberals truly fight for the safety of others they should fight for regulations on alcohol consumption and driving. That is what o believe the point he was making.

It isn't insane for me to respond to what FromWithin was saying in his description.