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.
Is there such thing as Gun violence?
I am doing a project on my school on school shootings. For the title page I did have "Gun violence and school shootings". Then I realized "What am I doing" and I erased it Because lets be honest, can guns be violent? Or is it just the people that get ahold of the guns that are violent?
It is absolutely imperative that we have accurate, objective and well defined statistics and information regarding violence. Part of this is to study firearms and their role in it, whether offensively or defensively. However, I maintain that:
1) a firearm is an inanimate object, ergo, one must fear and punish the person who would use the firearm for violent purposes
2) a firearm is the safest and most reliable way to extinguish a threat of this kind when it occurs
3) a violent person is not limited simply to monodirectional ranged weaponry to be a significant threat to the lives of those around them
4) it makes utterly no sense to punish someone for the actions of someone else, ergo, possession and use of (for instance) a machine gun without violent intent is no reason to incarcerate one person just because someone else used a machine gun to great lethal effect elsewhere.
Be afraid of violent people, not inanimate objects.
Agreed--and superior force that can be quickly drawn is exactly what one wants when a deranged, hostile attacker is intent upon inflicting harm to you and/or those close to you.
superior force that can be quickly drawn is exactly what one wants when a deranged, hostile attacker is intent upon inflicting harm to you and/or those close to you.
A deranged, hostile attacker who you have sold a gun to. This pseudo-reality you have invented where only people with good intentions are permitted to purchase firearms is absolutely retarded. If I were a deranged, hostile attacker and you legalised guns, have a guess what the very first thing I would buy would be, you pitifully stupid troll.
Nom, if a hostile attacker pulls a knife on you while in a situation where you cannot escape (possibly because you have your family with you or otherwise), than you want a projectile weapon that is capable of neutralizing them. Otherwise, game over--no re-spawn.
There are countless situations where a projectile weapon that is easily accessible, to use, quick and strong is of the utmost importance to posses.
Also, legally owned firearms are not the primary source of our gun violence in the US.
So it is not complete derangement to say that most people who use guns for detanged hostile attacks are barred from buying guns. Which is to say that most legal gun purchases are not for nefarious purposes.
Also, legally owned firearms are not the primary source of our gun violence in the US.
Bullshit.
About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Forty percent of state prison inmates admitted they obtained the gun illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer, or by stealing it.
Furthermore, your arbitrary division between "legal" and "illegal" guns is completely irrelevant. Guns of any description (i.e. legal, illegal, pink, fat, long, short or thin) are much easier to acquire in America because America is saturated in guns. Other countries do not have the same problem with "illegal" guns precisely because they haven't legalised guns and then begun praying criminals won't get hold of the same thing they just legalised.
About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show.
48% isn't most. It's less than half, which means your opponent was objectively correct and you said bullshit. Do you even listen to yourself fool?
Also, "I got it from a family member or from a friend" in no way objectively means it is legal.
MathFan, only someone of your impossibly defective cerebral capacity would even contemplate using a knife as a weapon in a country where guns are legal. Why would anybody use a high risk close-quarters weapon when they could just pop you in the head from 30 yards away? That's stupid and you are ignoring common sense.
where you cannot escape
It is much easier to escape from a knife than from a bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound. Your total lack of common sense is beginning to irk me.
MathFan, only someone of your impossibly defective cerebral capacity would even contemplate using a knife as a weapon in a country where guns are legal.
First of all, knives are used extremely frequently in muggings, street attacks, etc.
Second, knives are the most lethal weapon inside of a 10-15 ft (or even 20+ft.) range. Special Operators in the Military, SWAT officers, correctional officers, etc. will & do tell you that constantly.
Here, this is an elite Special Forces soldier discussing how lethal a solid knife in close range--as well as exactly why you would want to get far away from it (outside its most lethal range) and use a projectile weapon (i.e. gun) to neutralize the threat.
Hence, your argument rests upon two fallacies, and from that a foreigner has deduced that America should disarm itself--based on your trivially false impression of how violence works. Not very convincing in my eyes.
First of all, knives are used extremely frequently in muggings, street attacks, etc.
Bullshit. You're literally making up your own version of reality. In 2017, knives were used in 23,000 robberies in the US, compared to 119,000 guns used in the same capacity. Hence, by saturating America in guns, you don't stop knife robberies: you CREATE gun robberies.
How is it possible that you could be dense enough to miss this?
Everything you write is incredibly stupid and contrary to the most fundamental principles of reason.
Second, knives are the most lethal weapon inside of a 10-15 ft (or even 20+ft.) range.
More bullshit. Knives aren't 15 feet long. That's a big fucking knife mate. If you are 15 feet away from your target then OBVIOUSLY a pistol is more lethal, because it is a RANGED weapon and you are standing AT RANGE. You see how that works, imbecile?
Here, this is an elite Special Forces soldier discussing how lethal a solid knife in close range
A knife is extremely lethal if it is being used by a special forces soldier to kill you. Guns are however still considerably more lethal if they are used by the same special forces soldier to kill you.
Hence, your argument rests upon two fallacies
My argument rests upon zero fallacies you horrendous little liar. You are the one of us using fallacies, so your accusation is a flat-out joke.
You have no common sense and you should try to understand that it is because you're an idiot.
More bullshit. Knives aren't 15 feet long. That's a big fucking knife mate. If you are 15 feet away from your target then OBVIOUSLY a pistol is more lethal, because it is a RANGED weapon and you are standing AT RANGE. You see how that works, imbecile?
This may be the stupidest argument I have ever seen.
This may be the stupidest argument I have ever seen.
This from the far right neo-Nazi who doesn't understand the difference between "non-whites" and "Latinos".
Ahahahahaha!
You calling anybody else stupid is a hoot, Bronto. Within the last twenty minutes you have claimed Jason Kessler is a liberal, David Duke is a liberal, and illustrated that you cannot add up simple percentages.
Hence, by saturating America in guns, you don't stop knife robberies: you CREATE gun robberies.
It's already saturated with guns dumbass. You have no solutions. You make arguments as though the guns aren't already there in mass. Well if we say nice idealistic things the gangs will disarm and jump into the ocean you see. Screw the fact that none of these people are disarming and liberals are afraid to touch a minority or take from them. God you're a dipshit. You want the guns, but you aren't going to touch the people who have them. You're just going to make a law you see, and now the gangs laugh at you and the NRA types see you as the problem that needs destroyed. You'd walk in to take them, and you'd walk your scared ass right back out, if you were lucky.
You've sat here and bitched and bitched and bitched, and we've had to watch your stupid ass, and the best you can come up with is "make a law", knowing full well the criminals and pro 2nd amendment ideologues would ignore you and possibly even declare war on you.
We aren't in the outskirts of Britain where people drink tea with their pinky out. We live in a multicultural ticking time bomb where there are so many cultures, languages and tribes, that there is nothing that binds us together and everybody's interests are different, so people retreat to their tribes and dogma in order to survive.
We KNOW it is saturated in guns, which is why we are suggesting you FIX that problem instead of giving out more guns and calling people dumbass.
You have no solutions.
You have been told REPEATEDLY what the solution is: ban guns just like every other civilised country has banned them.
You make arguments as though the guns aren't already there in mass.
Nobody has ever suggested there are no guns in America, so you are attacking a blatant STRAW MAN ARGUMENT. Since you obviously cannot argue with what your opponent is ACTUALLY saying, but are too STUPID to admit he is right, you instead have decided to MAKE UP YOUR OWN VERSION. This proves that you are dishonest and have no interest in actual debate.
Okay, let me dumb it way down for you retard boy. There are 400 million legal guns in the US. The number of actual guns is probably in the billions. You have no solution as for how to disarm the criminals and gangs. Me laying down my arms would be pure stupidity. If we were in a place with no guns, a no guns allowed law might work. But we are in a country where guns outnumber people possibly 3 or 4 to 1, and where nobody on any sides of the aisle want to disarm. It's like telling a soldier in World War 2 to lay down his weapons to make peace. Then the Nazis kill his ass. Explain which part of that flew right over your dumbass head.
Why would anybody use a high risk close-quarters weapon when they could just pop you in the head from 30 yards away? That's stupid and you are ignoring common sense.
You just made the point as to why a civilian would need a gun themselves. The criminal has one.
A dreanged attacker who statistically probably got the gun illegally underground.
Why would he need to go "underground" to get a gun when you have fully legalised them and he can buy one in Walmart? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard you moron. Not only is it stupid, but it's demonstrably false. See:-
About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Forty percent of state prison inmates admitted they obtained the gun illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer, or by stealing it.
About 48 percent of state prison inmates surveyed said they got the gun they used from a family member, friend, gun store, pawn shop, flea market, or gun show. Most states only require a background check if the purchase happens at a gun store, according to the Giffords Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
To purchase a firearm in America, you have to complete the ATF Form 4473. Then a federal firearms license (FFL) can: Contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) through a state government contact who conducts NICS checks. Contact NICS call centers for a background check.
As I said, the problem with the south side of Chicago is when the wrong people get ahold of guns. The south side of Chicago is violent, but you can't blame it on the guns. In fact guns have saved more people than it has killed.
As I said, the problem with the south side of Chicago is when the wrong people get ahold of guns. The south side of Chicago is violent, but you can't blame it on the guns. In fact guns have saved more people than it has killed.
You can't blame the guns on the violence in Chicago ?????????
That proves nothing, all it does is show a shooting that happened. And just because it says it was “gun violence” on there, it doesn’t make it true. Apparently you didn’t hear me the first two times, so I will say it once more, The guns aren’t violent, it is the people that get ahold of the guns. Let’s think about this, guns were made for defense right? Well when someone uses one for another purpose it is their fault, it wasn’t the gun’s fault even though the bullet came from it, the person pulled the trigger. If a car runs into someone does it make it car violence? Or what about a knife? If a knife killed someone is it knife violence? If so why doesn’t anyone call it that? You need to backup your facts buddy!
The south side of Chicago is violent, but you can't blame it on the guns.
Of course you can blame it on the guns you retard. A person armed with a gun is capable of considerably more violence than a person armed with a pencil or a shoelace. You seem to be doing your best to ignore the reason why guns are built in the first place, and are pretending they are no more dangerous than fluffy toys. You are a typical American moron, brainwashed by years of egregious NRA propaganda.
"A person armed with a gun is capable of considerably more violence than a person armed with a pencil or a shoelace." Honestly you seem to just be stating the obvious. Of course a gun can do way more damage than a pencil, I don't remember hearing a story of someone dying from a pencil. However, guns were made for self defense. Guns are dangerous, they can save lives just as easily as they can take them. And I never said that guns aren't dangerous. All I said was they aren't violent. As I told someone, if a person is hit by a car, does that make it car violence. Or what about if someone is killed with a knife, is it called knife violence? No!
That is EXACTLY what I am doing, and the only reason it is necessary is because you are doing your best to DENY the obvious. The first thing you claimed was that guns are inanimate objects, incapable of committing violence on their own, and the next thing you claimed is that they are tools for self-defence. So which is it, retard? Are guns inanimate objects or do they consciously decide to only be used for self-defence?
Of course a gun can do way more damage than a pencil
Which is exactly why it's stupid to hand them out like pencils.
All I said was they aren't violent.
Which both states the obvious (making you a hypocrite) and completely misses the point that guns are there to make violence easier, not to commit violence unilaterally. They are there to make it easier for humans to commit violence against other humans, so telling us they don't commit violence on their own is like telling us that cheese doesn't eat itself.
I don't remember hearing a story of someone dying from a pencil.
Written incitements to violence have caused significant death tolls. The best example is the Communist Manifesto. But most people who exercise free speech don't incite violence, just as most gun owners don't murder people.
As I told someone, if a person is hit by a car, does that make it car violence. Or what about if someone is killed with a knife, is it called knife violence? No!
If a person is hit by a car, we call it a car accident, not a person who had an accident with a car. Knife violence is on the rise in London, and that's the easiest way to describe the rise in violence utilizing a knife. I can appreciate that you are trying to illustrate that guns are not the causal factor in gun violence, but there is no reason not to call it gun violence. It is the quickest way to illustrate what you mean and it need not imply that the gun caused the violence, only that the violent person utilized a gun. It's gun violence. I don't see the problem with that.
A person armed with a gun is capable of considerably more violence than a person armed with a pencil or a shoelace.
People are capable of considerable violence, but we don't blame them for violence unless they actually commit a violent act. People who work out are also considerably more capable than those who don't, but working out does not lead to beating people up.
You cannot blame people for what they are capable of. You have to blame them for what they do. The vast majority of legal gun owners do not use them illegally. The vast majority of those who use guns illegally, are already criminally exempt from ownership.
America's violence problem is a cultural problem, as evidenced by the fact that we also have higher rates of knife violence.
The government is fully capable of committing considerable violence against its own citizens
Everybody who is armed with a gun is fully capable of committing considerable violence against citizens you annoying little idiot. What you are saying is irrelevant because citizens aren't using guns to kill members of the government. They are using guns to kill each other.
How do you propose to stop the government sending soldiers to foreign countries to murder people?
I haven't made the proposition to disarm all people, such as those in the government (nor have I accused them of murder), so this isn't really my issue to make. How do you propose to stop my government from making it's own soverign decisions concerning foreign policy? haha just kidding. You can't.
If my government were to send soldiers into their own country to murder people, I'm happy to have some method of resistance. You know, like the Viet Cong had, and the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Guns.
I haven't made the proposition to disarm all people, such as those in the government (nor have I accused them of murder), so this isn't really my issue to make.
Nobody is asking you to make an issue. You were asked a simple question. Either answer it or shut up.
If my government were to send soldiers into their own country to murder people, I'm happy to have some method of resistance.
And while you wait year after year like a paranoid lunatic for America to inexplicably regress back to the 16th century, or convert into an African dictatorship, meanwhile 30,000 completely preventable deaths are happening on an annual basis. Many of them children.
In fact, obviously you will agree that small arms fire is an inferior form of resistance against the might of the military, so the only way to really be safe against this hypothetical American dictatorship of yours is to hand out attack helicopters, fighter jets and intercontinental ballistic missiles, wouldn't you agree?
There is no misrepresentation Bronto, you retarded neo-Nazi imbecile. Suicide is a form of death. Contrary to what you evidently believe, people who shoot themselves are equally dead as those who are shot by other people.
A form of death that kills higher rates of people in Japan than in the US, despite their significantly more restrictive gun laws
Of course. Guns prevent suicide. I don't know why I didn't see it before. Good point mate. If those Japanese people were armed then obviously they wouldn't have killed themselves.
Holy shit. Nom is so fucking stupid that he thinks weapons of violence prevent self-inflicted death...Now that I've pointed out Japan's higher suicide rate which persists despite their relative lack of guns, I hope that when you are feeling a little down you will go get yourself a gun.
I've got some other stats for you, but I don't want you to start thinking guns cure cancer.
Of course. Guns prevent suicide. I don't know why I didn't see it before. Good point mate. If those Japanese people were armed then obviously they wouldn't have killed themselves.
Your problem being that most suicides don't involve guns.
Your other problem being that when the pioneers lived in a heavy gun culture, suicide rates were minimal.
while you wait year after year like a paranoid lunatic for America to inexplicably regress back to the 16th century, or convert into an African dictatorship
I'm not waiting for that. Is that what the cops are waiting for? Is that why they all have guns?
meanwhile 30,000 completely preventable deaths are happening on an annual basis.
In 2016 it was 14,415 homicides by handgun according to the CDC. 22,938 handgun suicides. 22,027 non-firearm suicides. The ability to get a firearm is significantly restricted in Japan, but they have a higher suicide rate than the US.
Also, there were 68,995 deaths from poisoning that year, so I guess we have bigger (and less media-friendly) fish to fry.
Many of them children.
490 firearm deaths in 2016 were children under the age of 14. 283 children under 14 committed suicide without a firearm. There are 325.7 million people in the US.
In fact, obviously you will agree that small arms fire is an inferior form of resistance against the might of the military, so the only way to really be safe against this hypothetical American dictatorship of yours is to hand out attack helicopters, fighter jets and intercontinental ballistic missiles, wouldn't you agree?
In case of an American dictatorship, a significant portion of the US military will defect and serve as an official opposition force. That force will need an underground movement. That movement will need guns; we have those.
For what it's worth, I am in complete agreement with you that guns are tools designed for violence.
But you just said you were waiting for that. Honestly mate, just try sticking to the same story for more than a paragraph at a time.
Is that what the cops are waiting for?
The cops are waiting for you to explain what the cops have to do with your paranoid assertions that the government is out to get you.
Is that why they all have guns?
Our cops don't have guns, halfwit. Your cops have guns because everybody has guns.
In 2016 it was 14,415 homicides by handgun according to the CDC. 22,938 handgun suicides. 22,027 non-firearm suicides.
Then I stand corrected. 37,000 completely preventable deaths on an annual basis. Thanks.
The ability to get a firearm is significantly restricted in Japan, but they have a higher suicide rate than the US.
Glad you mentioned it. Please see the following graph which illustrates how the suicide rate in Japan has drastically declined since it began restricting firearms:-
This is why you are so well known for your lies, they are utterly apparent. Anyone can see in this very thread that I never said that. You do this all the time. I expect it's why you feel the need to constantly accuse others of your habits. No one buys it.
Our cops don't have guns, halfwit. Your cops have guns because everybody has guns.
Yes. Our cops have guns because other people, such as criminals they may encounter, have guns. I live in the same place as those cops.
Then I stand corrected. 37,000 completely preventable deaths on an annual basis.
I'm not surprised you're failing to grasp the simple point. Without guns, the deaths would be by other means. American culture is violent. Japanese culture is more suicidal, lack of guns doesn't prevent that.
And thanks for that link, it shows that the suicide rate was once as high as it is in Lithuania, another country with a fraction of gun ownership compared to the US.
There were 325,945 heart attacks
Not nearly as preventable as death by poisoning. Also, I believe your estimate is very low.
The problem with your criticism of US gun violence is that it always places too much weight on weapon when the problem is our culture. Gun crime is relatively low in places like Switzerland while their ownership is relatively high (compared to other Euro nations). Their culture is more peaceful than the US. Our problems of violence have always been higher than other comparable nations. Our knife violence is higher than other comparable nations. Our problem of violence is cultural, not weapon of choice.
People choose to use firearms illegally and commit crimes with those firearms
Guns are tools for violence and hence they facilitate crime, so yes, of course people are going to use them for crime. Do you expect people to use a tool other than the best one for the job?
Exactly!!!! I agree 100%, especially now, nothing is used for it's main purpose. Take for example drugs you would get from a pharmacy. Some people overuse them, and use them for the wrong purpose. They use something that was made to help you, and turning it into something that could possibly kill you. It is the same scenario. As you said "People choose to use the firearms illegally"! They use them to hurt other people. That doesn't mean you can blame it on the gun. Here is another one, when someone is arrested, is it right to blame the police officer? Just because the officer cuffed someone up and took them to jail doesn't mean you can blame the officer
They use something that was made to help you, and turning it into something that could possibly kill you.
Listen carefully. Guns were invented to kill you in the first place. They weren't invented to cure your headache. Abusing the purpose of a gun is another way of saying you used it to heal the sick.
Guns are tools for violence and hence they facilitate crime
A gun will facilitate a gun crime, but it won't commit a gun crime. A gun will also facilitate the obstruction of a gun crime, which is why every patrol officer carries a gun.
of course people are going to use them for crime. Do you expect people to use a tool other than the best one for the job?
That is a really good point Nom. Guns will be used for crimes. Since the preferred tool used by police to stop such crime is a gun, I better keep mine close, in case the cops aren't with me 24/7.
A gun will facilitate a gun crime, but it won't commit a gun crime.
This completely irrelevant statement is exactly the same as saying a flashy looking car will facilitate being driven, but it won't drive itself. Please show me where anybody has ever made the claim that guns shoot themselves, you moron. Why would guns need to shoot themselves in order to be dangerous? Does this Mickey Mouse logic also apply to biological weapons? Smallpox isn't dangerous because it doesn't intentionally kill people?
Stop replying to my posts with attacks against your own idiotic straw man arguments. It's boring and dumb.
Does this Mickey Mouse logic also apply to biological weapons?
Biological weapons will literally take it upon themselves to attack you all on their own. A gun needs a murderer behind it. That's relevant. That's the reason my gun isn't going to murder anyone, and I'm happy to keep it.
Biological weapons will literally take it upon themselves to attack you all on their own.
LMAO. Like all other types of weapon on Earth, biological weapons do not attack without being launched, fired or set off by a human. If biological weapons just did their own thing then they wouldn't be much use to us, would they?
I'm not the one who thinks biological weapons make their own decisions, am I retard?
Who knows, but you are the one who has watched countless regimes dangle socialism and communism as a carrot, then oppress its people. Oh but this is the one exception bronto... this is gonna be the day.... (as nom drools down both of his chins)
Hootie, I'm not sure why are disputing me. I agree with your rebuttal.
They are just tools. They would facilitate the crime.
The gun itself does not commit the crime however without the human being. As a result we can't fault the gun itself for immorality. But we can characterize the crime as gun violence.
Hootie, I'm not sure why are disputing me. I agree with your rebuttal.
I've lost track of this debate buddy. My apologies if I misunderstood something you said.
They are just tools. They would facilitate the crime.
Guns definitely do facilitate crime, yes. When Amarel claimed that guns only facilitate gun crime he was using circular reasoning, because any crime in which a gun is involved automatically becomes a gun crime.
The gun itself does not commit the crime however
Nobody has ever made the argument that guns commit crime or shoot people independently of their owners. This is possibly the most long-standing straw man argument in American politics. Tanks and missile silos do not commit crime on their own either. Does that make them safe to distribute to people? No.
As a result we can't fault the gun itself
Another straw man argument. The gun is doing its job when it is used to commit violence, because that is why the gun was designed.
The word "facilitate" means to make easier. Hence, your assertion that crime predates guns is completely irrelevant. Travel predates cars. Does that mean cars do not facilitate travel?
Your problem is twofold, buddy. Firstly, you're dishonest. Secondly, you're an imbecile.
Come back when you can muster something more advanced than your usual red herring fallacies.
Muscles make it easier. So does speed. So do knives. So do masks. You've shown no stats from pre gun days to compare to now. Of course, we don't have them, now do we? Maybe it was easier to rob someone before a woman could carry an equalizing weapon. If you were a big, fast guy, you just grabbed her, manhandled her, and took what you wanted. Now she might put a bullet in you.
Are you anti woman? Is misogyny your reason for wanting guns disallowed? Do you have a fetish for women being raped and robbed by bigger, stronger men with no means to protect themselves?
Muscles make killing easier. So does speed. That does not mean that giving someone a machine gun does not make killing easier. Your argument is, once again, irrelevant and stupid.
You've shown no stats from pre gun days to compare to now.
Red herring argument. I was never asked for stats from pre gun days or a comparison to now. You cannot attack me on the grounds that I am not telepathic. Fuck off.
Maybe it was easier to rob someone before a woman could carry an equalizing weapon
No, it was MUCH HARDER, because the robber didn't have a machine gun you IDIOT.
So when the woman had no firearm, killing her was easier than today when she might blow you away
Unless most robbers have a similar degree of intelligence to yourself, the fact that a victim might be armed will prompt them to arm themselves also, and with weapons more lethal than the victims themselves carry.
Let us not pretend for a moment that guns have prevented crime in America, because America has the highest rate of incarceration on planet Earth. Nearly a full quarter of all prisoners on Earth are American.
Your theory that legalising guns impedes crime is therefore stupid because it is contradictory to the facts.
Let us not pretend for a moment that guns have prevented crime in America, because America has the highest rate of incarceration on planet Earth. Nearly a full quarter of all prisoners on Earth are American.
Couldn't care less. If the crime exists because of guns, I should double down and get two more to protect myself. Could it be that there is a correlation between liberals running cities with high gun crime and...gun crime?
Your theory that legalising guns impedes crime is therefore stupid because it is contradictory to the facts.
I have no such theory, nor did I propose such a theory.. You have no way to disarm the convicts, so why would I disarm?
You also don't have pre gun stats, so as far as we know, more people were robbed pre gun.
Pretty much the way this entire website feels about your alt-Reich propaganda, Bronto. If you want to believe being a Nazi makes you edgy or important then bully for you. But the rest of us just think you're an obnoxious little imbecile.
If the crime exists because of guns, I should double down and get two more to protect myself
THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT, YOU IDIOT. Legalising guns leads to a vicious circle where law-abiding citizens have to arm themselves to counterbalance the fact that everybody considering committing a crime has gone out to buy a gun.
Could it be that there is a correlation between liberals running cities with high gun crime and...gun crime?
Could there be a correlation between your incessant wave of attacks against liberals and your decision to frequently quote Hitler?
Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party.
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n* with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5]
I don't need to "address" the fact that you are purposefully taking Hitler quotes out of context, because this is just something you do out of dishonesty. Hitler tried to court the Muslims to fight for him, so obviously there will exist positive quotes. I have no doubt that Hitler also made positive quotes about Jews. However, since I'm not a completely dishonest little twit like yourself, I don't isolate them from their correct context and pretend they prove Hitler loved the Jews.
I don't need to "address" the fact that you are purposefully taking Hitler quotes out of context, because this is just something you do out of dishonesty
Cool. So you te us what this means.
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6]
Hitler tried to court the Muslims to fight for him, so obviously there will exist positive quotes. I have no doubt that Hitler also made positive quotes about Jews
Right. Let's ignore that you called me a liar for saying they existed. Now you admit they existed then say...
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?[4]
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mohammed, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A n with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.[5]*
Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism [Islam], that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.[6]
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science... The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organized communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Moslem was promised a paradise peopled with sensual girls, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing hallelujahs! ...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.![7]
Churchill used much more abrasive language than I do toward Islam
Firstly, no he didn't. That's a lie. I have never in my entire life read anything more disrespectful to Muslims than some of your posts on Create Debate.
Secondly, Churchill has absolutely nothing to do with you sharing the same views about Muslims as the Nazis did. He's a complete change of subject. Everytime you get closed down, you arbitrarily change the subject and continue telling lies.
I did a fact check for you guys, & hootie is incorrect.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."
I did a fact check for you guys, & hootie is incorrect.
I did a fact check and he is absolutely correct. Nowhere does Churchill call for the complete extermination of Muslims as you yourself have done many times on this site.
You are a lying little Nazi cockroach who is using overt selection bias and unbelievable fallacies of omission. See:-
Sir Winston Churchill 's family feared he might convert to Islam
Unless most robbers have a similar degree of intelligence to yourself, the fact that a victim might be armed will prompt them to arm themselves also, and with weapons more lethal than the victims themselves carry
You are describing the exact same scenario for women in a world with no guns. The man usually has a severe advantage.
In a world with guns, she only needs one bullet to connect.
If he doesn't think she has a gun, he still has a gun.
No, not if you ban him from having a gun. You see the way this works, imbecile? Don't sell him a gun, and then the woman doesn't need another gun to protect herself from his gun.
Women running around with AK47s is the "exact same scenario" as women running around with no AK47s.
It's the same equivalence in regards to the man having an advantage. You haven't addressed that a gunless world puts her at a disadvantage regardless. You won't be addressing it in the future either.
Why is it that you only ever see what you want to see? You refuse to ever think anything through before you say it.
It isn't equivalent, so therefore it is a "false equivalence". For someone who so frequently makes accusations about "false equivalences", you don't seem to have much of an understanding about what they actually are.
You haven't addressed
I thought you were going to "address" why women running around with AK47s is the "exact same scenario" as women running around without AK47s? Always looking to project and deflect, are you not, my young little Nazi acolyte?
so therefore it is a "false equivalence". For someone who so frequently makes accusations about "false equivalences", you don't seem to have much of an understanding about what they actually are.
I thought you were going to "address" why women running around with AK47s is the "exact same scenario" as women running around without AK47s?
If the man and the woman are armed, they are on equal footing. If they are both disarmed, he has the advantage. This takes pre school level intellect to understand.
Always looking to project and deflect, are you not, my young little Nazi acolyte?
Not addressing Hitler burning churches and glorifying Islam eh nom?
If she pelts him with led, he's not a threat to her.
What are you even blathering about? I can't believe you're still talking. If she does this, if he does that, if the dog turns up and admits having an affair with the butler. Dear oh dear, you appear to have descended into the depths of rambling stupidity, have you not?
If you sell HIM a gun, then you can hardly complain when SHE gets shot. In fact, it's kinda your fault.
Tanks and missile silos do not commit crime on their own either. Does that make them safe to distribute to people? No.
False equivalency. A gun cannot create destruction on the same scale. A pistol will not take down buildings. A gun also has many uses not associated to committing crime.
Straw man argument. I did not claim that missile silos and guns were equivalent.
A gun cannot create destruction on the same scale.
I never suggested otherwise. You are changing my argument without my permission. What I wrote was related to whether inanimate objects commit crime on their own. It was not related to how much damage individual inanimate objects commit. This is a complete change of subject which you are attempting to force into the conversation.
OK cool. You said Hitler was great. No, you actually did.
Lol. Shut up Bronto.
by equating why citizens don't need missiles to why citizens don't need guns.
I did no such thing. I literally just explained to you that my argument concerned inanimate objects not being able to commit crime on their own. It had nothing to do with what you just wrote. You are literally trying to change my argument and it's retarded.
I never suggested otherwise. You are changing my argument without my permission.
I'm stating your exact argument.
What I wrote was related to whether inanimate objects commit crime on their own. It was not related to how much damage individual inanimate objects commit. This is a complete change of subject which you are attempting to force into the conversation.
You began by stating my exact argument, sure. Then you changed my exact argument from being about whether inanimate objects can commit crime to being about whether missiles and guns cause the same amount of damage. Hence, either you can't read English, you're a liar, or both.
The problem with this question is that any one person in society may not have a monopoly on determining morality for another person. By what moral authority does one person have to determine if its safe me to own a gun.
Then this leads into the next issue, moral superiority. The individual can now be sacrificed for the greater good. The greater good in this case is, its not safe to own a gun because, I say so. I'm superior. I know better than you. If you can't comply, I'll violate your individual rights by confiscating your private property, imprisoning you against your freewill or I my myself, may even kill you with a firearm. The firearm I oppose you from owning.
When it comes to crime, we need to focus on individual responsibility regardless if guns were or were not used to commit the crime.
A person should never be limited from purchasing a firearm because someone thinks its not safe. The law abiding citizens who own firearms out number the criminals by far thus we have a safety (in abstract terms) that would not exist if criminals had a monopoly on firearm ownership.
You may not agree with this, but I hope what I said makes sense.
The problem with this question is that any one person in society may not have a monopoly on determining morality for another person
What you say is not a problem because guns have nothing to do with morality. They are tools which help people kill other people. I thought we already agreed on that? Make up your mind please mate.
Guns are tools that help other people kill people. True.
You are arguing that people shouldn’t have guns because in fact guns are tools that help people kill each other.
I’m saying, you don’t have the moral authority to enforce (via law, king’s decree, or divine right of rule) your point of view on citizens and thus feel justified to disarm the public.
Let’s review this:
Guns are tools that help people kill people.
Criminals may use a gun and kill people to gain power, financial gain and/or for romantic reasons.
I may use a gun and kill a criminal (or a person) who breaks into my home, desiring financial gain by stealing my private property.
No, guns are a form of self defense. However when they get in the wrong hands, people get hurt. But you can't blame the gun, it was the person that pulled the trigger.
No, guns are a form of self defense. However when they get in the wrong hands, people get hurt. But you can't blame the gun, it was the person that pulled the trigger.
Tell me how Demorats will keep guns out of the wrong hands you misinformed idiot !
As I said earlier, you think by criticizing me, and calling me an idiot, that it makes you right. Well you would be wrong!! So why don't you put your big pants on, and we can do this the right way!
Tell me all about how gun bans work ? You got some information ???????
Why don't you just scamper off now little britches. We wouldn't want your pants to shrink any more while you're in public, or we might see something unsightly.
What a joke. If you honestly believe shooting someone constitutes a defensive action rather than an offensive one, then you belong in psychiatric care. Not only do the statistics prove that far more guns are used in crime than in self-defence, but the only time guns become necessary as a form of protection is in a place where YOU'VE SOLD EVERYBODY ELSE GUNS.
It is like you honestly believe guns were invented to facilitate peace instead of to make violence easier. Your posts are just an absolutely shocking display of circular reasoning and backwards logic.
They were invented to make killing game easier in order for survival.
Ahahahahahahaha!
Historians typically recognize Chinese fire lances, which were invented in the 10th century, as the first guns. These bamboo or metal tubes projected flames and shrapnel at their targets.
That's because you are stupid enough to think a fire lance and a rifle are similar.
I said no such thing you horrendous little liar. You claimed guns were invented to hunt food. The Chinese fire lance was the first gun ever invented and it was invented for war.
Do you ever stop lying, Bronto? Even for a moment, just to catch your breath?
Guns evened the playing field so that the biggest and strongest bully no longer has the upper hand!
Can you grasp that simple fact? Guns protected nations from the most evil nations who wanted to conquer the world.
Peace is kept through strength and it always will!
Me and my family are no longer living in fear of some criminal breaking into our house and killing us all. We have guns and can defend ourselves no matter how big and strong he is!
Anyone who wants to take our guns, is a big government socialist who wants the Government to control the people.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why doesn't the Left support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if their goal is to save lives with all the anti Gun rhetoric, they should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
The answer to your question is no. When someone strangles a person to death, they don't call it hand violence, or strangle violence.
It's only the gun that the Let hates because to control the people, you must first take their guns, as they have in most Socialist nations and dictatorships around the world.
