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.
In Chicago, Gun Violence Defies Comprehension
CHICAGO — Last month, the nation grieved the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history after 49 innocent people were slaughtered at an Orlando nightclub. Here in Chicago, primarily in several predominantly black and Latino neighborhoods on the city’s West and South Sides, there’s the equivalent of an Orlando massacre every month. Gun control proponents on the left clamored in the aftermath of Orlando about the availability of semiautomatic weapons that allowed the shooter to kill more than he may have been able to with a less efficient weapon.
Has anyone seen the Progressives calling for Gun Bans in Chicago ?
They make it harder for citizens to get guns, law abiding or otherwise. In most countries they restrict it down so a gun is almost impossible to get without a good reason l. AND even when you do finally get permission to apply for a license you have to go through hours of training. But as long as guns are a normal part of your society you will have mass shooting
I think the problem lies not in the efficiency of guns or their availability. The problem is in the mental state of people who carry those guns. You'd better go betting at http://vogueplay.com/.
This debate is the funniest thing I've heard all day, thank you.
I'm not actually from America so I'm part of the rest of the world
Smiling as your country goes to shit.
Every civilised country in the world has restrictions on guns.
For some reason every other civilised country has less to no mass shooting- correlation?
Gun laws make it harder for all citizens, law abiding or not to get a
Gun and this is a good thing!!
The only argument you have for pro guns is this: I really want one, it's not very good but it's the only one you have that the facts stand behind. But since you insist on acting like children the rest of the world will treat you as such.
Your video was super boring, so I stopped watching, but I saw enough to know it is another miserable failure. If the office has the rule that you aren't allowed to shoot your Nerf gun at people, then they can take away his gun and match exactly how America works. Our laws already say that you can't own a gun if you have committed a crime with it. It presents a strawman argument.
Ohhhh I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the whole point point, How come every other well developed country in The world combined (Europe and Australia) don't have the same amount of mass shootings in the last five years as the great USA has in the last 6 months? You don't need guns at all and there inclusion in everyday life leads to death and misery. The only possible exception I could think of is for pest control.
Because these weapons aren't shields they require special threat assessment training to anticipated a threat and act before it happens. Someone who already has a gun drawn will always kill these "good guys" your not goddamm cowboys of the west
Ohhhh I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the whole point point
The video was cited as your supporting evidence, so he got at least one of your points, whether or not there are other points you think he should have also addressed.
How come every other well developed country in The world combined (Europe and Australia) don't have the same amount of mass shootings in the last five years as the great USA has in the last 6 months?
How come mass shootings have spiked in recent years, despite two decades of consistent overall decline in gun violence? The simple answer is that we don't know but it is probably a combination of factors.
You don't need guns at all
I don't need a 42" HD television, or a couch, or a Kayak, but that is hardly an argument for prohibition. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in the U.S. Constitution.
and there inclusion in everyday life leads to death and misery
I'm going out on a limb and guessing that your experience with firearms is very limited. I personally know of at least a dozen or more people with firearm collections and in the entirety of my life none have died from any of them less maybe deer or rabbit. This speaks more to the point. Where someone lives is a good predictor of their attitudes on firearms.
Those who live in urban centers and mentally associate firearms with crime tend to have more restrictive attitudes towards firearms, and those from rural areas who associate firearms with hunting and sport shooting tend to have less restrictive attitudes.
Because these weapons aren't shields they require special threat assessment training to anticipated a threat and act before it happens.
Like a CPL course perhaps?
Someone who already has a gun drawn will always kill these "good guys" your not goddamm cowboys of the west
Well, no, not always. The perpetrator may be breaking into a house, in which case a home owner might have enough forewarning to retrieve their own firearm. The perpetrator might only be armed with a knife, or the "good guy" might not be the target of a crime but rather a capable bystander or good Samaritan coming to the aid of another person. The "good guy" might be going into a dangerous situation prepared -- a walk home at night, a midnight train, etc.. all of which are things that have actually happened at some point or another.
Every country that has banned guns has not seen an overall drop in murders. The murder rate stays the same, but people stop using guns to do it. I don't give a flying fuck how people die. If you don't reduce the overall number of dead people you haven't accomplished anything. You have been indoctrinated by the anti gun people. Reducing shootings shouldn't be our goal. Reducing the number of dead people should be our goal. If there are 10 fewer shooting deaths, but 10 more stabbing deaths, have you accomplished anything?
In some instances they have, just not consistently in all places it is attempted. That's because, as is ever so common, this issue is far more nuanced than people want to believe. So those who want gun control will point to small-scale instances where it worked (despite the fact that there are usually other factors involved), and vice versa.
As for a domestic comparison, it's hard to tell considering our government essentially isn't allowed to do research on the topic via the Dickey Amendment.
For some reason every other civilised country has less to no mass shooting- correlation?
Well, as long as we are drawing correlations, allow me to draw one. Nearly all other civilised countries have been ruled by a dictator, some of them multiple times.
.
.
.
António de Oliveira Salazar - Portugal
Francisco Franco - Spain
Georgios Papadopoulos - Greece
Benito Mussolini - Italy
Wojciech Jaruzelski - Poland
Adolf Hitler - Germany
Mao Zedong - China
Napolean Bonaparte - France
Oliver Cromwell - England
Erdogan - Turkey
Engelbert Dollfuss - Austria
Joseph Stalin - Russia
Vidkun Quisling - Norway
Alexander Lukashenko - Belarus
Óscar Carmona - Portugal
Todor Zhivkov - Bulgaria
Hirohito - Japan
Ioannis Metaxas - Greece
Miguel Primo de Rivera - Spain
Marcelo Caetano - Portugal
.
.
Most of these countries have a history of authoritarianism that runs through the blood of their political systems, the state of freedom of speech is worrisome to say the least. Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Denmark and various other civilised countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Gun prohibitions, confiscations and other similar laws are symptomatic of that vein of authoritarianism.
Well, the rest of the world doesn't have as much mental illness. That's our problem, the mentally ill won't even allow us to stop TERRORISTS from getting assault weapons. There are too many mentally ill in high places ... like our Conservative Congress.
Never mind that 87% of the country WANT stricter gun laws .... the mentally ill that we have elected WANT the "freedom" to KILL any sumbitch that they think deserves it! STAY IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY! (It's dangerous over here!):<)
My friend, you are what we call an ignorant child. You are probably from the UK or something and have no idea what goes on over here. Knowing people who own guns and ACCUALLY NEED THEM, and owning quite a few myself, I can tell you for a fact that without being in the position we're in, you have no idea what you're talking about. Now will you kindly screw off
You said "You don't need all those guns", I was pointing out that need is irrelevant when it comes to constitutional rights. I don't think I can elucidate my position any more clearly than that.
Good for you! But I just explained why it has no rhetoric effect.
You said it makes me look mad, which is not the same as saying it has no rhetoric effort, nor is telling someone that something has no rhetoric effect equivalent to explaining why it has no rhetoric effect.
And since rhetoric effect is what you're aiming for, then don't be cussin.
Saying that something is "fucking insipid" adds flavorful emphasis in a way that "very insipid" will never achieve, and I use it mostly to that effect. When used selectively can be a useful rhetorical tool, though can lose its distinctiveness when overused (much like fully capitalized words, I might add). Like it or not I reserve the right to swear, and anyone whose sensibilities cannot bear the sight of adult language I would advise to close their eyes.
Insipid means " Civil liberties don't end at need". Gotcha.
I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion based upon what I have said.
You said "You don't need all those guns", I was pointing out that need is irrelevant when it comes to constitutional rights. I don't think I can elucidate my position any more clearly than that.
Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
You said it makes me look mad, which is not the same as saying it has no rhetoric effort, nor is telling someone that something has no rhetoric effect equivalent to explaining why it has no rhetoric effect.
"I'm not persuaded" is implied. So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect.
Saying that something is "fucking insipid" adds flavorful emphasis in a way that "very insipid" will never achieve, and I use it mostly to that effect.
None of that is true here, except maybe your admittance to vulgarity.
Like it or not I reserve the right to swear, and anyone whose sensibilities cannot bear the sight of adult language I would advise to close their eyes.
So your point here is to argue that you have rights?
I never said you didn't. So you are just rambling.
I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion based upon what I have said.
Its not my conclusion...its exactly what you said in response to my question.
Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
And...?
"I'm not persuaded" is implied.
So implied personal incredulity is tantamount to explaining why something is wrong?
So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect.
It's still not.
None of that is true here
Apparently it is, or you'd not have spent the effort you have to remonstrate over my choice of words.
except maybe your admittance to vulgarity.
Do you believe that I have cause to deny vulgarity? Vulgarity is no substitute for wit but it is a fantastic addition to it. Any who have seen and read my posts will are aware that I have no shortage in my lexicon, and yet I still occasionally find good use of words the prudish are too reticent to use.
So your point here is to argue that you have rights?
Er.. no, it was more a rejection of your advice that I refrain from "cussin".
Its not my conclusion...its exactly what you said in response to my question.
That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
If you do not grasp the relevance of Constitutional Rights in a debate about gun control, your incomprehension is self-imposed, and I can do nothing to remedy that. That being noted, I fail to see how this in anyway answers my question.
Now you get it, Dipstick
So let me see if I understand this correctly. You have a problem with "cussin", but calling your opponents morons and dipsticks unreciprocated, is just fine with you?
How did you reach that conclusion?
Because you said: "'I'm not persuaded' is implied. So it is an explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect."
To say that one is 'not persuaded' is the definition of personal incredulity. Then you went on to infer ("So it is an explanation...") from personal incredulity that an explanation was therefore made.
Why not?
Because simple declarations of personal incredulity are not explanations. If someone claims that Western Silverback Gorillas Have a propensity towards tool use more similar to chimpanzees than to Eastern Silverback Gorillas, and someone else responds "I'm not persuaded" has that person made an explanation as to why the aforementioned statement is untrue?
No, Slowhumian, I was simply stating an exception.
I don't think you were but I won't dwell on it.
Then nobody knows what your point is, including you.
I think my point is pretty apparent; "You don't need guns" is a terrible argument in a gun control debate. Had this been your debate, I'm guessing you would have banned me already.
It was to point out your insipidity.
That may have very well been your intent, but the question was nevertheless still nonsensical.
If you do not grasp the relevance of Constitutional Rights in a debate about gun control, your incomprehension is self-imposed, and I can do nothing to remedy that. That being noted, I fail to see how this in anyway answers my question.
I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
It's just noncombative, which makes your dispute nonsensical.
So let me see if I understand this correctly.
Herrrrrre we go.....
You have a problem with "cussin",
No. I never even said that. You're really bad at this interpreting thing. You're misunderstanding my literal and figurative responses, by either adding too much or not seeing what else is there.
explanation for why it had no rhetoric effect."
To say that one is 'not persuaded' is the definition of personal incredulity. Then you went on to infer ("So it is an explanation...") from personal incredulity that an explanation was therefore made.
Because simple declarations of personal incredulity are not explanations. If someone claims that Western Silverback Gorillas Have a propensity towards tool use more similar to chimpanzees than to Eastern Silverback Gorillas, and someone else responds "I'm not persuaded" has that person made an explanation as to why the aforementioned statement is untrue?
But the implication of it was the explanation.
To see the implication is a simple step by step process.
You want rhetoric effect.
You didn't get it.
Therefore you shouldn't do what you did.
I don't think you were but I won't dwell on it.
You dont think so because you get off on the idea of being attacked.
I think my point is pretty apparent; "You don't need guns" is a terrible argument in a gun control debate.
That's just your unsubstantiated opinion.
It's the perfect argument in a gun control debate.
When people stop wanting Guns, the demand goes down , and less guns are being put into the world.
Had this been your debate, I'm guessing you would have banned me already.
Again, you guesses wrong. I banned you from the other debate because the only thing you had to say was "Your argument is terrible." That's not even an argument, and that entails that the discussion is over. No need to let you keep posting non arguments as a dispute. There's enough of that bullshit around here as it is.
That may have very well been your intent, but the question was nevertheless still nonsensical.
You were clearly condemning insipidity.
But then said something insipid.
So that means you don't know what insipid means or you're being a hypocrite. It isn't nonsensical, you just couldn't make sense out of it.
ProLogos: No, moron. What's your point in stating that? Looks like you're just rambling.
--CONVERSATION 2--
ProLogos: Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
Bohemain: And...?
ProLogos: That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
--LATER--
ProLogos: I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
It's just noncombative, which makes your dispute nonsensical.
No, it doesn't but I tire of arguing semantics with you. In any case I'm not sure what you mean 'non-combative'. I posted, as we now both agree, relevant information in a gun control debate so your contention is what exactly?
But the implication of it was the explanation.
If all you are going to do is reiterate your claim, and ignore my questions and avoid the meat of my rebuttal this is conversation is not going to go anyway.
To see the implication is a simple step by step process. You want rhetoric effect.
I'm not sure what you think rhetoric effect is or what I meant by it, but it does not depend on whether or not you are personally persuaded. The 'Effect' was emphasis, not persuasion. I don't go into any debate expecting to persuade the opposing side. That's a fool's errand. Debate nearly always cements the opposition more firmly in their position, there are psychological reasons why this happens. Even if someone realizes their position is wrong mid-debate they will continue to argue as if it is correct.
You dont think so because you get off on the idea of being attacked.
I suppose 'moron' and 'dipstick' are terms of endearment?
That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. It's the perfect argument in a gun control debate
Bwhahahahahahahahaha! I suppose perhaps it might be a high-caliber argument for you, but it would not survive (and hasn't thus far) the most cursory critical examination. If Need were the critical factor to determine whether some consumer product ought to be highly restricted then we'd have to, by the extension of that logic, treat every non-necessity in an identical manner.
We'd have to ban, or highly restrict garden gnomes, puzzles & board games, grills, fish-tanks, comic books, swimming pools, movies, coffee mugs with snarky sayings on them, unicycles, television sets, collectible knick-knacks and doodads, video games, furniture, clothes for cats, mansions, luxury cars, tattoos, all beverages besides water, paintings, french doors, entertainment systems, theater, Roller coasters & water parks, and virtually all leisure activity and accessories/peripherals etc...
Of course we don't need any of these things, but need is entirely besides the point.
When people stop wanting Guns, the demand goes down , and less guns are being put into the world.
Because people only want things they need?
Again, you guesses wrong. I banned you from the other debate because the only thing you had to say was "Your argument is terrible."
I said a bit more than that, as did some of the other users you banned.
ProLogos: No, moron. What's your point in stating that? Looks like you're just rambling.
--CONVERSATION 2--
ProLogos: Well then, Constitutional rights are irrelevant when it comes to need.
Bohemain: And...?
ProLogos: That's been my whole point about your argument from the start.
--LATER--
ProLogos: I never said it's irrelevant to the debate.
ProLogos: What's your point?
Everything looks consistent here.
No, it doesn't but I tire of arguing semantics with you. In any case I'm not sure what you mean 'non-combative'.
A dispute is combative.
If it's not combative then it isn't a dispute.
You chose your post as a dispute,without actually disputing .
That's why it's nonsense.
I posted, as we now both agree, relevant information in a gun control debate so your contention is what exactly?
I never had a contention. You disputed me so you should have the contention.
The 'Effect' was emphasis,
Emphasis on what? Fucking? What's fucking got to do with this discussion?
Nothing.
I suppose 'moron' and 'dipstick' are terms of endearment?
You really aren't making sense here.
by the extension of that logic, treat every non-necessity in an identical manner.
That's not logical because the terms on different.
None of those things listed are nearly as harmful to life as guns.
Because people only want things they need?
No.
I said a bit more than that, as did some of the other users you banned.
The only thing you had left to say was "that argument is terrible". If you don't want to be banned, add an actual argument with your insults.
The other guy was banned because he stated several things that I know he couldn't prove and we've already discussed how he's too lazy to go do the research and site his information.
For the apparent fact that you say so.
If you want a information, ask for it. Passive aggressive sarcasm only clouds communication and deludes yourself into thinking you've made a good point.
Problem is Progressives don't care about the guns in the hands of criminals ! Progressives want to disarm law abiding citizens ! That is why Progressives will not address gun violence in Chicago !
No they don't they want to take alllll guns out of the system you conspiracy idiot 😂. Some guns only use is for killing people now if you can't even see the logic in removing acces to that small percentage of guns then you're a lost cause sorry buddy
They also tried in England, Canada and many other countries and it DOES work, my dear friend. I agree that the high level of mental illness held by those who carry guns in America makes it a bit more difficult here, but, if we don't TRY it DEFINATELY WON'T work! If we don't "weed out" the crazies .... you may as well change the name to the United States of Chicago!
The FBI has so many technicalities placed on them, and DO NOT HAVE THE RECOURCES to cover the thousands of gun shows and dealers that would rather "wink" when they sell a gun than follow the rules! (No profit in rules!) HOW, exactly are they supposed to gage one's "mental health" in three days?? They would have to have agents trained in Psychoanalysis in every town! (Actually, several of them in larger towns! Think they'll get the funds to do that from a conservative Congress ... led by the NRA?? Yeah, "this would work."
The FBI does an amazing job with what they have. They'd have to stop ALL criminal investigation in order to cover what the NRA (and the conservative Congress) has encouraged against them!
Funny, how in one breath conservatives defend law enforcement, and in the next say they "SUCK"! It depends on which conservative agenda the are working with at the moment.
That's part of the problem. Here you say "all people can still buy guns" Below, you say that the mentally ill are restricted from it, and that the FBI sucks. Which is it? We all know, ANYONE can buy from the massive cache of guns in America. We HAVE to get SOME control by using that nasty thing that is used to protect people, called "regulations"!
Oops. I jumped from one similar post to another. Anyway, the point is the same.