CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:66
Arguments:72
Total Votes:67
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 350 million guns in America (63)

Debate Creator

DBCooper(2194) pic



350 million guns in America

The number of civilian firearms at 242 million in 1996, 259 million in 2000, and 310 million as of 2009.As of 2013 there is  357 million firearms in the U.S. 
The Democrats push the narrative of more gun control measures which is a feel good thing for their voter base.
More gun control measures will never work for the amount of guns already purchased and owned in this country.
How will more gun control measures work for the already purchased and owned guns in this country and do Democrats even have an answer for that.


Add New Argument
1 point

I agree with Joe Rogan on guns. There is no GUN PROBLEM in America. It's a mental illness problem and people like that getting access to guns. When 9/11 happened, did we say there is now a plane problem? No, it's not the plane problem, it's the people who got access to the plane who were mentally ill.

I do believe there should be stricter or more difficult measures on how to acquire and own a gun, but it's been proven and shown in America that some of the places that have the highest gun presence actually have the lowest gun crimes.

Another argument is that if the "good guys" had guns when those mass shootings happen, you wouldn't have a slaughter of 30 or 50 dead people. The only reason why so many people die in those mass shootings is because nobody else as a gun to defend themselves and shoot back. When someone shoots back, there's a whole lot less killing going on because you aren't going to just stand there anymore and have a free-for-all.

2 points

Civilian accuracy rates in emergency situations is horribly bad, mental illness is involved in less than about 5% of all shootings, and we certainly do not have the lowest gun crimes in the places with the most guns. There are far more conditionals involved to make that statement true.

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

Everyone's accuracy rates in emergency situations are horribly bad. Especially with hand guns.

Gun violence is lower where legal gun ownership is higher. That's not inaccurate. What's missing is that legal gun ownership is higher in more rural populations which have a lot of other reasons for lower rates of gun violence. Even so, the point, I think, is that legal gun ownership is not the source of most of our problems in the US. And illegal gun ownership is already a breach of gun control measures.

1 point

Nothing is going to stop the gun violence we have here in America with the overwhelming number of guns available. The issue however is not the guns for as we people have been using every excuse we can come up with to keep and maintain the number of guns we have available to us. Our initial focus was on the Second Amendment "Oh the second amendment gives me the right to hunt and/or the Second Amendment gives me the right to shoot my guns whenever I want to at targets, nothing but lies.

Now that America has allowed so many guns in the country the issue now becomes I need guns in order to protect myself and my family from the guns I have already allowed in America.

The routine excuse of the gun problem is criminals, and the mentally ill Well I say that is only part of the list. How is it that people Never Talk about Responsible Citizens Getting Upset Getting a Gun and Killing Their Partner, Their Friend, Their Parent, Their Brother, Their Sister, Their Uncle, and the List Goes on. The Biggest Problem Is Not Mental Illness, the Biggest Problem Is Not Just Criminals Because Nobody Can Tell When a Responsible Gun Owner Just Made Go off!

1 point

Nothing is going to stop the gun violence we have here in America with the overwhelming number of guns available. The issue however is not the guns for as we people have been using every excuse we can come up with to keep and maintain the number of guns we have available to us. Our initial focus was on the Second Amendment "Oh the second amendment gives me the right to hunt and/or the Second Amendment gives me the right to shoot my guns whenever I want to at targets, nothing but lies.

Now that America has allowed so many guns in the country the issue now becomes I need guns in order to protect myself and my family from the guns I have already allowed in America.

The routine excuse of the gun problem is criminals, and the mentally ill Well I say that is only part of the list. How is it that people Never Talk about Responsible Citizens Getting Upset Getting a Gun and Killing Their Partner, Their Friend, Their Parent, Their Brother, Their Sister, Their Uncle, and the List Goes on. The Biggest Problem Is Not Mental Illness, the Biggest Problem Is Not Just Criminals Because Nobody Can Tell When a Responsible Gun Owner Just Made Go off!

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

Responsible gun owners, by definition, do not "just go off". That's why no one talks about it.

wisegrip(132) Disputed
1 point

Let's just go a little ways back in time when a responsible gun owner lady in a I believe shopping center witness A Black person running away from a policeman. Without the slightest indication of what transpired based on what she was seeing this responsible gun owner took out her gun and began firing at the fleeing Black man.

Fortunately she missed this guy a number of times and thankfully she didn't hit innocent bystanders. Let's however change the circumstance even more.

What if the running Black man was a witness in a trial case against a gang member And what if the guy with the police outfit on was not a policeman but rather a gang member? I believe this signifies That Responsible Gun Owners Can Go off!

You'd be surprised how quickly we could get that down and make it hard to get even on the black market.

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

You mean one day they could be as hard to buy as illicit drugs?

1 point

Coming from someone born and raised in Canada, I can assure everyone from the U.S. that almost every first world country is concerned with the lust for guns and violence in the U.S.. I'm not saying one shouldn't be able to own a gun (I like shooting myself), but there is no need for anything apart from a single fire long-rifle or a shotgun. No one outside of the U.S. needs a fully automatic rifle or a 50 caliber pistol, so why should Americans? Gun control effectively and completely disarmed Australia so there's no reason why a nationwide ban solely on assault weapons and weapons primarily used for killing as opposed to hunting (No one needs to hunt with a handgun, also why would you want to?) couldn't be placed in effect.

The current gun laws obviously don't work and every law enforcement officer probably sweats just a little bit every time they pull over a car or approach a suspect due to the fear of being shot, and I'm sure law enforcement would absolutely love more restrictions and control over weapons in the hands of the public.

Amarel(5669) Disputed
1 point

The reason that bans that work elsewhere would not work in the US is because it's an entirely different culture. If you were to pass a gun ban law, let alone try to implement it, there would be such chaos that it would amount to a civil war.

The law enforcement officers I know don't sweat guns in the hands of legal carriers (of which there are a lot in my state). In fact, the cops tend to be very pro-second amendment. I'm sure this varies from region to region.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

It is worth noting that an increasing number of police precincts are complaining about open carry laws specifically and how they interfere with their jobs and make them feel unsafe.

1 point

I have no problem with Americans legally owning guns and have no interest in taking them all away. Like I've said on past debates I even have a license to carry (though I don't).

That said, I also have no problem with efforts to promote public safety, and whether or not the current gun laws are sufficient or wise in doing that it doesn't mean we should simply then have zero safety laws and let everyone do anything with anything anywhere they want.

And I quite firmly believe the fanatical opposition to public safety efforts on this topic will eventually horribly backfire on the pro-gun movement because sooner or later the balance of power will shift enough to get laws or an amendment through and when that does it's going to be a whole lot more overreactive than you want it to be. You'd be better off engaging in reasonable discourse than using the stonewall and then belittle tactic.

There are many parallels between the own any gun insistance and the right to own a pitbull insistance. Whether it's really the fault of the breed or not there are communities that just don't want to allow pitbulls. And pitbull owners are BS about it insisting no one has a right to stop them from owning one. But meanwhile there are several hundred other breeds of dogs they could own instead without many people batting an eye about it. Dogs are super easy to come by, you can walk around with one, you can indeed hurt someone with one but people give you the benefit of the doubt they won't until you show otherwise. Guns and gun owners are like that, too. And technically most places require you to comply with safety about your dog whether it's leash laws, picking up their poo, vaccinations, dog tags, etc. And people with an animal abuse history shouldn't be allowed to own a dog. Heck, all we're asking for the gun owners to do is the same basic thing - cooperate with basic public safety requirements.

0 points

Lol. I hope this convinces gun nuts that more guns obviously don't make us more safe.

As a NRA certified gun owner, I think universal background checks and the disqualification of people on the terrorist watch list, the mentally ill and violent criminals from buying guns are sensible reforms. An assault weapons ban would be disappointing, but I will survive without my M&P15;.

So as far as how already purchased guns are handled, the example that is usually presented is that of Australia's gun buyback program. Certain categories of guns were banned. Gun owners were compelled to sell those guns to the government at fair market value. The guns were then destroyed.

Since Hillary's most extreme proposal is to ban assault weapons. That would only be a small fraction of the existing guns, making it a feasible task.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

More gun control laws can in what way control the 350 million guns in this country. The question presented can you answer.

nobodyknows(745) Disputed
1 point

Well crazy loners wouldn't be able to purchase guns and shoot up crowds of people theoretically. It doesn't seem plausible that they would have the resources to illegally buy a gun since they are usually loners.

Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

If you look at California you see that Democrats don't give a flying fuck about giving people a fair market value, so the Australia solution will never be implemented here.

DBCooper(2194) Disputed
1 point

Not caring about California but how will more gun control laws work when there is 350 million guns in the country.

IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

No Cartman, you see that Californian Democrats don't give a fuck about it. California Democrats are a special breed.

nobodyknows(745) Disputed
1 point

Luckily the regressive left from California will never know any real power. We will have the grown ups in Washington handle this.