CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
29
Yes No
Debate Score:46
Arguments:39
Total Votes:48
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (24)

Debate Creator

brontoraptor(28861) pic



American Gun Advocates Are Incredibly Selfish Individuals

"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.

-TX43 
aka "nomenclature"

Yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

No

Side Score: 29
2 points

This attitude of mind is an accumulation of many factors ranging from machismoism to a deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment states;- A well regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I fail to see how this can be interpreted any other way than the right to bear arms is dependent upon all weaponry being subject to the control and disciplines of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

There are many other 'non lethal' forms of self defense which vulnerable or insecure individuals can avail of, such as pepper sprays, C.S., gas and I'm sure many others.

Of course we all know that the sale of firearms in the U.S, is big business and the mighty Gun Lobby have most politicians in their back pocket.

So, as the cash registers keep ringing the carnage shall continue.

-

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
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 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
Antrim(1297) Disputed
1 point

This debate is about gun control.

If you wish to debate DUI/DWI you should raise this topic under separate cover when I may, or may not respond.

If you do introduce a thread on DWI and I answer referring exclusively to gun control I'm sure you'd consider it strange behaviour.

Guns are too readily available in the U.S.A., and that's it, no ifs or buts.

Side: Yes
2 points

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
1 point

"American Gun Grabbers 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 exercise the God given right made into law guaranteeing firearms equal to threats both foreign or domestic. Life, property and our constitutional rights require a vigilant well armed citizenry to ensure it.

All I ever hear from a Anti-American self imposed band of defenseless victims is how it is their "right" to oppose legal 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 of dangerously delusional contempt towards armed patriots. Then concluding deaths resulting from the liberty and freedom afforded by the Constitution should lead to taking away the very rights that millions of Americans fought heroically to defend. My suggestion is to instead focus on the death and destruction resulting from rogue elements throughout government and corporate entities either breaking or not enforcing laws. You do realize that referencing the character, Rambo as a gun rights fantasy, makes sense considering his guns were used to fight corruption and win freedom.

Guns are a short, simple reminder of just how oppressive and backwards advocates for gun laws are.

Side: Yes

TX43-Do guns kill 30,000 people per year in the United States

So, seeing most gun deaths are suicides or gang on gang violence, in a country of 320,000,000 people, statistically there is almost no chance I get killed by a gun today.

Side: No
2 points

Ok two reason firearms are a United States Constitutional right not yet alienated by 2nd Amendment.

First:

any person who is pressuring legislation to remove the personal property of a United States Citizen, of their United States Constitutional right to common defense, without offering full a due cost, and expense of that property sought after, is nothing more than a thief making a threat against the general welfare. Publicly undertaking the act of organized crime by interpretation of law, without any protection of impartial judicial separation. The loss if this kind of theft can total amounts over thousands of dollars, making it a felony crime, if the threat of organized theft is taken steps farther, upon a conviction, if it where to happen, a right to vote would be a start of a list of constitutional separations taking place on a substantial list taking years and costing billions of dollars.

A crime and criminal are not held by any certainty to fire-arm alone. While life, liberty, and our pursuit of happiness are not insured by any way, shape, or form to the removal of fire-arms. The truth here is there are people who are far more lethal by condition, than by their intelligence. The issue is that the advocate of fire-arm removal, and criminals conducting crimes with fire-arms are by a standard of law both committing many of the same crimes, and are only in different ways criminals.

Second:

All a crime need do is take place if an accusation is to be taken seriously. A prediction that all people who are in ownership of a fire-arm will someday kill, is great exaggeration to a crime that has taken place. An intellectual thief calling a person who has taking oath to defend the United States of America. May not really understand which are legal the States to defend, and which are the illegal we need not defend in the description of United States of America.

P.S. The States describing land of the Constitutional Union are not the only legal states declared by Declaration, Flag, and United States Constitution.

Side: No

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

TX43-The exact same law which arms the female also arms the rapist

The rapist would have a gun regardless of what the law says because he's? ....a law breaker... but now the law abiding female is unarmed...

you backwards hillbilly twit.

I'm an educated minority who lives in a metropolitan area.

How is it so difficult to understand that for every female you arm, you also arm five rapists?

Laws don't disarm law breakers. They disarm law abiders.

Guns are incredibly useful for rapists

No shit. That's why the victim needs the ability to defend themselves.

but they are of very little use to most females.

Many women take classes on how to use a firearm.

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed Banned
2 points

The rapist would have a gun regardless of what the law says

This is the most nonsensical piece of idiocy I have read from you in weeks, bronto. On which planet does it become reasonable to sell something to someone you wish to prevent them from having? Terrorists aren't going to obey the law which says they can't ram cars into people, so how about we make that legal too? Or no, wait... How about we sell them biological weapons? I mean, clearly they are terrorists and aren't going to obey the law, so the solution is to sell biological weapons to everyone, right?

You're a retard. Literally, you're retarded.

Side: Yes
1 point

This is the most nonsensical piece of idiocy I have read from you in weeks, bronto

Not possible. You just started this account and aren't nomenclature...

Side: No
1 point

On which planet does it become reasonable to sell something to someone you wish to prevent them from having?

The Mexicans flooding the southern border bring in illegal guns and sell them illegally. If we make guns illegal, they'll bring more in, sell more guns, and we now simply have more unregistered illegal guns, and no less gun deaths.

Side: No
1 point

Or no, wait... How about we sell them biological weapons? I mean, clearly they are terrorists and aren't going to obey the law, so the solution is to sell biological weapons to everyone, right

False equivalency. Biological weapons aren't all over the U.S. to be bought by anyone and everyone. Guns are. And biological weapons aren't simple to create. Guns are. We don't need guns to defend against military grade weapons posessed by terrorist militants. We need guns to protect us against criminals.

Side: No
FromWithin(8239) Disputed
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 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 point

Terrorists aren't going to obey the law which says they can't ram cars into people, so how about we make that legal too

Give me a sniper rifle. I'll stop him dead in his tracks before he kills anyone else from a half mile.

Side: No

TX43-You have it backwards. The only point of view my argument makes sense from is one of cold logic. Why waste 30,000 lives each year that you don't need to waste?

Most gun deaths are suicides. Take guns out of the equation and they'll kill themselves with pills, poison, knives, ropes, or any other brutal way to off one's self.

Take gang on gang violence, terrorism and suicide out of the equation, and virtually no one was killed by a firearm last year.

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed Banned
1 point

Most gun deaths are suicides.

Firstly, you're lying. Only about one third are suicides. Secondly, what does that have to do with anything?

Side: Yes
1 point

Only about one third are suicides

Let's use your claim. Now my .00009375% chance of getting killed by a firearm this year is even less.

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed Banned
1 point

Take guns out of the equation and they'll kill themselves with pills, poison, knives, ropes

This is stupid. If they intended to kill themselves using pills, poison or ropes then they would have used pills, poison or a rope. They chose to use a gun.

Side: Yes
1 point

If they intended to kill themselves using pills, poison or ropes then they would have used pills, poison or a rope. They chose to use a gun

And in reality, would have still killed themselves with a gun that they bought illegally from the Mexican underground market.

Side: No
1 point

They chose to use a gun

If you could magically keep them from getting a gun, they would go with option B.

Side: No

And if we simply take all 30,000 gun deaths and divide it by 320,000,000 American citizens, there is a .009375 % chance of being shot by a firearm in the United States.

http://www.geteasysolution.com/30000-is-what-percent-of-320000000

Side: No
TX43(4) Disputed Banned
2 points

And if we simply take all 30,000 gun deaths and divide it by 320,000,000 American citizens, there is a .00009375 % chance of being shot by a firearm in the United States.

Compare that to how many people are killed by Muslims in the United States and one begins to see quite quickly what a laughably stupid little hypocrite you are. That is, if they haven't worked it out already by your total misunderstanding of the way probability works.

Side: Yes
1 point

So...if your claim is that my likelihood of being killed by a Muslim is slim to none, thus no need to "ban Muslims", it should logically follow that you apply the same thinking to guns.

Side: No
1 point

To get the solution, we are looking for, we need to point out what we know.

1. We assume, that the number 320000000 is 100% - because it's the output value of the task.

2. We assume, that x is the value we are looking for.

3. If 100% equals 320000000, so we can write it down as 100%=320000000.

4. We know, that x% equals 30000 of the output value, so we can write it down as x%=30000.

5. Now we have two simple equations:

1) 100%=320000000

2) x%=30000

where left sides of both of them have the same units, and both right sides have the same units, so we can do something like that:

100%/x%=320000000/30000

6. Now we just have to solve the simple equation, and we will get the solution we are looking for.

7. Solution for 30000 is what percent of 320000000

100%/x%=320000000/30000

(100/x)x=(320000000/30000)x       - we multiply both sides of the equation by x

100=10666.666666667*x       - we divide both sides of the equation by (10666.666666667) to get x

100/10666.666666667=x

0.009375=x

x=0.009375

Side: No