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.
yes because on one hand he wants to take away our ability do defend our selves and our famalys with guns while on the other hand he has people who defend him and his famaly WITH GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes he is. That is actually the definition of Hypocrite, for he advocates gun control but has a security detail of 11 guards assigned to his children. I am not saying they should not have that detail, for they are in danger, but so is every other citizen of the USA. Everyone should be allowed the right to defend themselves against the government as well as their fellow citizens. Gun rights are our most important right, for they protect the others.
He's the president. His kids are more important than yours. Sorry dude. That's what life dealt you. If anyone was mildly interested in kidnapping your kids it would be different, but they aren't.
And the government doesn't want to attack you. That is mildly psychotic narcissistic delusion.
The sentence "gun rights are our most important rights" will only ever be said by someone who has never actually had any rights taken from him. The right to vote, love, freedom of speech, clean water, clean air. If the government stopped filtering our water supply I suppose we could kill them till they started again.
He's the president. His kids are more important than yours. Sorry dude. That's what life dealt you. If anyone was mildly interested in kidnapping your kids it would be different, but they aren't.
Why are his kids more important? And don't say, "'cause he's the president."
And random peoples kids do get kidnapped all the time. Random kids get kidnapped and killed, kidnapped at raped, kidnapped and ransomed... you name it.
Well, technically the death of the president's kids would cause more harm to the country's psyche than some kids no one ever heard of, so yeah he's kind of right there, though I see your point.
The real point though is danger. The president and his kids are a clear target, and they get threats all the time. If you had 1/100 the number of death threats you'd have police protection as well.
This is a dumb debate on every level:
1. It's not the president with a gun it is trained professionals whom no one is suggesting not be allowed to have guns. So the premise is false.
2. Every president and every president's kids have armed protection in every country in the world since armed protection was invented, even countries that don't sell guns at all to anyone not in the military or police.
Does that really make their life more intrinsically important, though? If J.K. Rowling died her death would be mourned across several countries; if I die only my friends and family will care, but does this mean her life has more objective value, or that popularity or status would be good rational for saving or valuing one life over another? I guess I just don't see it that way. I get that they are more important in terms of status; I don't think this carries over to their life being more important than mine in regards to continuing to allow me to live it.
The real point though is danger. The president and his kids are a clear target, and they get threats all the time. If you had 1/100 the number of death threats you'd have police protection as well.
I get that and never argued that they weren't in greater danger than your random kid on the street.
Though honestly the police don't act on death threats unless they have some tangible evidence or the threat is made to someone while they are at school.
This is a dumb debate on every level:
You don't need to tell me, brother, and I agree with your reasons. I was just nitpicking at one little thing in one persons post I disliked; I'm trying to avoid the general topic altogether.
I get that they are more important in terms of status
Which is precisely what I'm talking about. Technically more important, though I get your point, as I said.
I was just nitpicking at one little thing in one persons post I disliked; I'm trying to avoid the general topic altogether.
I see. So it was more a clarification and disputing a point made not relating to the overall subject of whether a president's children having armed guards is hypocritical.
Which is precisely what I'm talking about. Technically more important, though I get your point, as I said.
I guess I see important as having two different meanings. One deals with status. The mayor is a person of import, for example. The other with value. A baby is important to its mother. So I admit the president's daughters have a higher status than I do, but I don't see their lives as having more intrinsic value.
I see. So it was more a clarification and disputing a point made not relating to the overall subject of whether a president's children having armed guards is hypocritical.
No and yes. It was defiantly a dispute, not a clarification. And, well, yeah; I mean what I said and not anything more. I addressed a specific point someone made in this debate, not the topic of the debate.
You know what is a great way to argue. Take away the correct answer. What's 2+2 and don't say 4! He's the President, which means his kids are a target.
Random kids do occasionally get kidnapped correct. Very rarely by anti government terrorist plots. Mostly by random psychos. And I don't need to name it, you already creepily did.
Okay, so his kids are a target. I knew that already. That's not what you said before and that's not what i was inquiring about. I asked why you think they are more important than other peoples kids. I guess "important" sometimes only addresses status, and if that's what you meant i see your point, but I was under the impression you were trying to assert that one life has more intrinsic value because it happens to be the offspring of a temporary elected official. And I want to know why.
It's not Obama's place to say how "at risk" I should have to feel before I'm allowed to buy a gun for protection. If he's allowed gun protection, so should everyone else.
Brilliant solution. Instead of buying a gun, I can just be rich and hire people who have guns! Or have the police escort me 24/7! Practicality be damned!
No usually all you have to do is show the business end of the weapon and they will run most robbers aren't murderers and criminals are usually cowards why fight someone and possibly die when you can run and find a more helpless victim.
he is because during the inauguration they had guns that are not available to private citizens to protect the first family. also, if we citizens arent allowed to handle assault style weapons why are the militairy? we need to protect ourselves just as uch as they do
we need to protect ourselves just as uch as they do
You live in a war zone? You're either from Somolia or you have paranoid delusions and are the exact type of person who shouldn't have any type of gun.
I'm all for sane individuals who've passed background checks owning regular guns that shoot like 8 bullets or whatever, it's the ones that think they need to shoot 30 bullets in a second and reload in another second who absolutely should not be allowed anything more dangerous than a helmet to protect their soft brain.
no gun shoots 30 rounds in a single secound especially not a simi-automatic oh sorry "assault weapon" and you do need to defend your self there could be a mugger, rapist, or murderer just around the next corner and you know what kind of gun he has? what ever kind he wants because criminals dont follow the law.
If you have a gun you have a better chance of shooting yourself in the foot with it than defending against some muggers. That's just a fact.
And you can defend yourself just fine with a regular gun, you don't need crazy semi-automatic weapons with however many bullets per second.
It's a childish argument these gun nuts are making. It's not about safety or logic or protection, it's kids stomping and pouting because someone might limit their toy.
Gun control works and it's worth doing. So go cry yourself to sleep because you think some shadowy government or burglar is coming to get you or whatever if you want, but us who live in reality have a responsibility to look at gun control as a way of cutting back on the ridiculous amount of killings.
If you have a gun you have a better chance of shooting yourself in the foot with it than defending against some muggers.
not if you have tacken gun safty classes and handel you wepon carefully.you can defend yourself just fine with a regular gun, you don't need crazy semi-automatic weapons with however many bullets per second. simi- automatics fire as fast as you can pul the trigger and simi-automatics ARE regular guns a simi-automatic could be a rifle or a pistol and they are more common and therefor regular than revolvers.
I refuse to believe you have taken gun safety classes considering you didn't spell even one of the words correctly (besides gun of course). How did you even find the class? What did the sign say?
And do you know what having a gun will do with to the rapist around the corner? Nothing, he's around a corner, not charging at you like a civil war reenactment.
When he come out of the shadows toward you if you are paying attention to your surroundings you should see him pull out your gun and if he dose not disengage imedeitly shoot him
A second ago they were around a corner. Now they're running at you. Can't you see how you're not prepared for this fantasy in reality. Crime doesnt move straight at slowly. Guns will not help do anything but get you killed
Let me paint this out for you pay attention your walking down the street and you pass an alley as you pass you glance around the corner of the building your passing you see some one charging you with a knife (distance will vary) so you un holster your gun simultaneously switching the safety off with your thumb you aim and fire. Now the bad guys dead and you can go home safe and sound whereas if you live in a country like Mexico, Canada, of Britten, where self defense is a felony you would be dead.
Practicing quick drawing is a great idea pistols are usually used this way as self defense tools that's why the hip holster is such a popular choice it allows for a quicker draw.
If you've never been in this king of situation before I understand how it can be hard to believe but trust me this is just one of many possible confrontations you need to be ready for
Obama is a hypocrite. He kids are just as important as the average American's kids, after all we are "One Nation" as what the allegiance states. If he is protecting his kids now from potential dangers, how dangerous do you think it will get when he takes away gun rights? Unfortunately worse.
Yes, and don't forget his drone program killing thousands of innocent women, and children at every strike. The government states "the drones make American safer", from what? Unarmed civilians? Assumed terrorist? Alleged combatants? U.S. authorities have largely kept quiet on the subject of drone strikes in Pakistan. Obama has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office. As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618.
Firstly he's a hypocrite for not allowing Americans to practice their rights to protect themselves, yet using thousands of their tax money to protect his two daughters. It is extremely difficult for the average American to hire security of that level. That is why any law abiding citizen should be allowed to own a gun...
Secondly he's a hypocrite for having armed guards for his daughters when he's sending drones into foreign countries and killing hundreds of children
Thirdly he's a hypocrite because he sold thousands of weapons to Mexican cartels which are being used to slaughter hundreds of people including children on a regular basis through his 'Fast and Furious' program.
There's probably more... but the worst part is that America's president is War Criminal and most of them don't even know it.
Thats because his children are much more likely to get attacked then average american citizens.
Yes. Well done.
Thats because average Americans don't need that much security.
Yes. Well done again.
Stats show owning a gun makes you more likely to get shot.
Which stats are these? Quote your sources.
So you only disputed 1/3 (the lesser part) of my post and not even very well at that.
I'm going to have to spell it out to you as you're obviously unable to comprehend what I've said. Everybody should be allowed to have protection especially for their children. It is hypocritical for Obama to spend thousands on protecting his daughters and then spending thousands more brainwashing dumb retards (such as yourself :)..) to say they're not allowed to protect themselves and their children as is stated by the Second Amendment.
I hope you're able to understand that now. Don't forget the other two points.
Thanks for the sources. I tried to look for some but after 5 minutes I couldn't find any directly related to carrying a gun = higher chance of getting shot and killed.
But there are some obvious factors which should be taken into account (that haven't been taken into account by the studies)
People who carry guns may already be in a neighbourhood where there is a high gun related homicide.
People who are carrying the guns might be involved in a feud which would obviously leave somebody dead
Oh I forgot to add that there was no need to dispute the whole post. I never disagreed with your first two lines. You're still avoiding my points though.
I mean even from a simple glance I can see that those studies are flawed. They don't paint a true picture.
He advocates for tightening gun control, not banning. In addition he can't be hypocrite as he himself doesn't own a gun. Thus he cannot be a hypocrite.
