CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
8
Yes No
Debate Score:20
Arguments:24
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (8)

Debate Creator

JimboShrimp(25) pic



Would gun control have prevented the Parkland shooting?

If so, what specific gun control measures would have to have been in place and are they reasonable under the 2nd Amendment? If no, what could have prevented it? 

Keep in mind the details we know about the 39 calls to police and the other red flags, as well as the role of the police in school shootings.

Yes

Side Score: 12
VS.

No

Side Score: 8
1 point

The man had a horrible record of attitude and emotional problems. It should have been illegal for him to have or purchase a gun, let alone an assault weapon, a weapon intended to kill at a rapid rate. It may not have "prevented" the Parkland shooting, but, several dead school kids that are dead now, would, likely, STILL be alive. A deputy that knew he was hopelessly outgunned would likely have entered the building had he thought he had a CHANCE. (Not trying to justify him/them, but, facts are facts.)

Side: Yes
JimboShrimp(25) Disputed
1 point

Obviously he shouldn't have had access to guns, but don't you think that's more of a failure on the police's part than gun accessibility? They had at least 1 perfect opportunity to Baker Act him besides all the other calls (a few from his own mother) that they ignored. (The man had a horrible record of attitude and emotional problems)

A deputy that knew he was hopelessly outgunned would likely have entered the building had he thought he had a CHANCE

A armed deputy (and more importantly, the armed school resource officer who was already inside) has an extremely good chance to stop any shooter given their training and experience. A police service weapon is only "outgunned" in the terms of caliber by a 10-round capacity, semi-automatic AR-15. I would say it's extremely unlikely a deputy would have been harmed in the confrontation, and the fact that there were 3 armed and trained deputies present made the hesitation even more inexcusable.

Side: No
smilinbobs(524) Disputed
1 point

My problem with your comments are that you blame the Gun as if any other gun would have made it better somehow. The Deputy Sheriff should be held liable for failing to protect the children he was hired to protect because of his cowardice. He had a firearm just as capable as the gunman and easier to handle. He was suppose to be a trained professional and should have at least engaged the shooter which would have diverted the gunman's attention saving lives. I work at a hospital where our security wear bullet proof vests and run to the conflict not outside away from it.

How was the Deputy "hopelessly outgunned" as you claim? A hand gun is larger in caliber easier to handle in close quarter's one bullet hitting the perpetrator would have brought the situation to an end.

Side: No
1 point

It was liberal policies that protected him from law enforcement. We wouldn't want a psychopath's college future ruined by going to prison before he killed 17 people.

Side: No
1 point

Hello Jimbo,

It depends upon what kind of gun control you’re talking about. Nibbling around the edges and calling it gun control, doesn’t do a thing. Full on gun control, however, will do lots.

As a matter of fact, that’s a great name for the law – The Full On Gun Control Act.

excon

Side: Yes
Amarel(4059) Clarified
1 point

I agree that not all gun control is created equal. But what would your "Full on Gun Control" entail ?

Side: Yes
excon(8949) Disputed
1 point

what would your "Full on Gun Control" entail ?

Hello again, A:

My mom had it right.. When I was 12, I won a Daisy BB gun at a raffle. My mom let me keep as long as I was responsible with it.. And, for the most part, I was.. Of course, I let my friends shoot it.. They weren't responsible AT ALL.. They shot out windows and killed some cats. But I couldn't be held accountable for their behavior, could I??

Well, my mom thought I could, and she took the gun away.. So, in her honor, I'm gonna change the name to Mom's Full On Gun Control Act..

I AM a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.. But, if our friends can't BE responsible with firearms, even if WE personally are, we can take 'em away.. The 2nd Amendment CAN be amended.

excon

Side: No
1 point

If guns were banned last year? No. If they were banned 30+ years ago like in many other countries then yes.

Side: Yes
StephanFaas(2) Disputed
1 point

If there were guns or weren't guns, if he wanted to commit an act of crime that bad he would have tried another way. Look in the majority of countries where all guns are illegal(terrible idea btw), there are mass knife attacks much worse than the Parkland shooting. And there have been studies after studies by very democratic sources that prove that if guns were made illegal, there would be much more gun deaths than there already are.

You probably think gun-free zones work don't you?

Side: No

No. He could’ve just ended up buying another type of gun. Like a machine pistol.

Side: No
AlofRI(2078) Clarified
1 point

A machine pistol is STILL an assault weapon, a weapon of war. He should NOT have had the ability to buy either.

Side: Yes
1 point

No, what the assault weapon ban entitles is semi auto rifles. Nothing more, nothing less.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(13141) Disputed
1 point

Crazy AL what is a machine pistol ??????? Explain what it is you know !!!!!!

Side: Yes
1 point

The Democrats in the supreme court don't claim to want assault weapons. The mask is off. They openly say ALL weapons now. Free speech is next. Last, you'll wind up in Oceania....

Side: Yes
1 point

The government doesn't do anything competently what would make anyone think that they could some how prevent murder. That can only be done by someone with intimate knowledge that a murder could be eminent. The government was given this information and failed to even check on it. Which translates to the fact that government passes all kinds of laws and if they as a group can profit somehow from them they act. If not oh well. There was nothing to gain prior to the murders no action but now the Dem's can try to buy free votes with a promise of "stopping gun violence" which is just an impossible political lie to fool the weak minded people of the country.

Side: No

Increased gun contol is just a gateway for complete gun control and in combination with the direction liberals are trying to take the country and being openly supportive of socialism, that would be very dangerous. Weed used to be illegal everywhere. Guess what, people still got it. If someone truly wants to do harm he or she wil find a way with or without a gun. If liberals had their way the National Guard would be kicking down doors taking peoples weapons by force.

Side: No