CreateDebate


Debate Info

73
77
Yes No
Debate Score:150
Arguments:141
Total Votes:181
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (60)
 
 No (64)

Debate Creator

TX43(4) pic



American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals

I mean it. These guys are just like toddlers. They throw a tantrum at the mere suggestion you might want to take away their lethal toys.

All I ever hear from Americans is how it is their "right" to possess dangerous weapons, without the slightest consideration for the danger it puts other people in. Since when is it a "right" to put other people in danger? It is impossible to reason with people who think like this because they necessarily abandoned reason somewhere along the road to deciding 30,000 unnecessary, completely preventable deaths per year is a price worth paying so they can fantasise about being John Rambo.

Guns are a short, simple reminder of just how regressive and backwards American culture is.

Yes

Side Score: 73
VS.

No

Side Score: 77
1 point

It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .

Of course this sacred “ right “ cannot be tampered with why ?

One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over .

Surely Americans have to ask themselves why their society has a need for guns ?

How are guns a sign of a progressive civilized society ?

The really hilarious thing is when one hears mostly American Christians throw a temper tantrum at the thoughts of not being allowed to bear arms ; Jesus no doubt would have Carried a “ piece “ if they were around back in the day .

Also the amount of near injuries from guns yearly in the U S is truly staggering ; and of course there’s no gun problem any one that thinks that must be an anti American socialist mustn’t he /she 😂

There’s no arguing this with American supporters of gun rights it’s akin to attempting to feed an Infant with Beluga caviar , pointless and a total waste of time

Gun violence in the United States is a major national concern that results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).

Side: Yes

It’s astonishing otherwise rational beings go absolutely nuts if one sugggests a ban on guns ; normally one hears the bullshit mantra trundled out as in “ guns dont kill people , people kill people “ a statement so inane only an idiot would spout it .

Exactly. It's circular reasoning. If people kill people then it's a really stupid idea to give them guns. It's like saying: "Now look see, there are a lot of people wanting to kill ye, so we've gone right on ahead and made it as convenient as possible for them."

One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over

I know. More backward reasoning. Aside from what you mentioned, there's also the fact that no civilised leadership has had to use force to maintain control for decades, or perhaps hundreds of years. The Nazis ushered in a new era of lies, propaganda and disinformation. Ever since then, manufactured consent has been the method despotic governments (such as, ironically, the current United States government) use to get their own way. Trump wasn't sending out troops to press-gang people into voting for him because he was too busy paying people to retweet bullshit on Twitter and upvote it on Reddit.

Side: Yes
2 points

It is indeed circular reasoning but one idiotic commentator recently said well “ why don’t you ban knives and forks then “ I still cannot make head nor tails of such an idiotic statement

It’s absurd to think the unorganized American population could even challenge the might of the American military , this retarded reasoning demonstrates such individuals should not have access to arms as they’re mentally unwell as they do not even realize they are ignorantly following a misinterpretation of their own constitution which the meaning of a 4 year year old over here easily comprehends

Side: Yes
xMathFanx(1742) Clarified
1 point

@Nomenclature

Why not just use your main account instead of TX43 and all the others? (although Quantumhead has been perhaps just as involved in CD as your current account)

Side: Yes
WinstonC(1232) Disputed
2 points

Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to these nations. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. Adding to this the ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in a more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry.

"One of the most used arguments is the pathetic fear of a hostile government taking hold of power as if an untrained populace would be any match against the American military suddenly becoming hostile and taking over ."

The fact that there are more guns than people in the U.S. would make for a difficult occupation, in addition to the inevitable multitude of military turncoats. If no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is because, in addition to the trauma of having to kill one's own people, resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.

There is also self-defense issue; to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after a crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible. Note also that Switzerland has no such gun violence problem, presumably due to cultural differences.

Side: No
Dermot(5686) Disputed
1 point

I wonder what makes the U S such a violent society that its citizens seem to be in a constant state of anxiety about threats from thugs ; thieves and a hostile government ?

Over here we are totally unarmed as are the majority of our police force and I’ve never felt under threat from any of the above mentioned, if Americans feel 30,000 deaths and 70,000 gun injuries yearly are a “ fair price “ to pay for such a right well maybe they need to give it some real thought

Side: Yes
TzarPepe(792) Disputed
1 point

The way the constitution is written, for the people to give up the right to bear arms would be to consent to slavery.

If not consenting to slavery makes someone selfish, I don't think that anyone pointing the finger is any less guilty.

Side: No
Dermot(5686) Disputed
0 points

So citizens of countries that do not allow their citizens to bear arms are slaves ?

You claim to be a “ Christian “ yet seem to take pride in the fact that 30,000 Americans die from guns every year in the U S and 70, 000 other Americans are injured by guns carried by idiots like you but hey you’re not a ..... slave

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed Banned
0 points

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you 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 inconvienenced 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 abidng citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvienence 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.

Side: No
Dermot(5686) Disputed
2 points

Why not save 30, 000 American lives a year by banning guns ?

Why not prevent 70,000 gun realated injuries a year by banning guns ?

Why is the U S such a violent society that its citizens need guns ?

Why do you call yourself a Christian yet totally ignore the teachings of Jesus who no doubt you will claim would be a supporter of gun rights ?

You can now run away and do what all gun nuts do and say “ there’s no problem at all it’s all just a load of commies trying to tell us how to live “

Side: Yes
1 point

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I would support that. Now gtfo.

Side: Yes
1 point

Guns contribute to most murders in the US. Why not restrict those weapons, and then there will be less murders!

Side: Yes
1 point

I mean it. These guys are just like toddlers. They throw a tantrum at the mere suggestion you might want to take away their lethal toys

So a female has no right to a firearm to protect herself from a rapist.

A black man has no right to a firearm to protect himself from systematic oppression by a racist cop.

A gay man has no right to a firearm to protect himself from a homophobic maniac.

A liberal has no right to a firearm to protect himself from a Neo-Nazi.

Liberals have no right to a firearm to protect themselves from an authoritarian government.

God you people are sick.

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed
1 point

So a female has no right to a firearm to protect herself from a rapist.

The exact same law which arms the female also arms the rapist you backwards hillbilly twit. How is it so difficult to understand that for every female you arm, you also arm five rapists? Guns are incredibly useful for rapists, but they are of very little use to most females.

You are, in short, retarded.

Side: Yes
1 point

All I ever hear from Americans is how it is their "right" to possess dangerous weapons, without the slightest consideration for the danger it puts other people in

1)You are more likely to be killed by a toddler or killed by lightning than by a Muslim...I mean a firearm.

2)So the cops are systematically oppressing black people according to libs, but said black people have no right to a firearm while the "racist police" are armed like it's Armageddon? Makes sense......

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed
0 points

You are more likely to be killed by a toddler or killed by lightning than by a Muslim....I mean a firearm.

Do Muslims kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.

Do toddlers kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.

Does lightning kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? No.

Do guns kill 30,000 people per year in the United States? Yes.

THEREFORE, YOUR ATTEMPTED COMPARISON MUST NECESSARILY BE A LIE. GIVEN THE NUMBERS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR IT TO BE TRUE.

Side: Yes
1 point

The way the constitution is written, for the people to give up the right to bear arms would be to consent to slavery.

If not consenting to slavery makes someone selfish, I don't think that anyone pointing the finger is any less guilty.

Side: No

It is a United States Constitutional right to common dense to keep and bear-arm. As this process is a common defense mentioned in writing by the United States Constitution. Due to the fact a fire-arm is personal property when simply legislated away without full payment in advance to seizer becomes crime. Never are the words how much will it cost to buy this property ever said. This means in the end the Government force trying to remove a bare-arm set by principle to common defense will be buying this one arm, brought to bear to insure liberty. This means a declared self-value unlike any advances taken by Freedom.

An intellectual skilled thief is still just a common criminal in judicial imparity. The 2nd Amendment though ratified by all states has never been proven by any of said states actual holding required means of addition separation of this Union to Right.

Side: No
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

Yes we are selfish it comes with the liberty as a person is allowed to hold self-value. Unlike Freedom. Any cost change made when a person is given more, and then more cost, to obtain an object, this cost can be added to the price of purchasing the object from them. Even when made by legislators who are just asked to be agents on behalf of public, domestic, or foreign seeking to illegally remove one basic Common defense in a long line of such common dense.

Side: Yes

never had any exp :p

but i think if u are sound enough then its all fine

but if the numbers show that 30000 people die due to guns

then it probably means that people are not sane enough

Side: No
0 points

If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't you support back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?

I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you 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 inconvienenced 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 abidng citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvienence 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.

Side: No
-1 points

Hello T,

From an emotional point of view, your argument makes sense. But we don’t make laws based on emotion. We make them based on the Constitution. If you can round up 2/3 of the states, then we can make an impact.

excon

Side: No