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.
Any person using their brain would ask why kids were not mass killing kids decades ago.
The problem today with school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with guns, because decades ago there were guns all over the place.
Teens could easily get guns, and our schools were still very safe! WHY? If guns are the problem, why were they not a problem in schools decades ago?
To an intelligent person, the answer is not gun control, but an honest look at this immoral self love culture. These killers are created by broken families, children feeling unloved, insecurities, violent Hollywood movies, etc. etc.
What kind of fool blames the weapon of choice rather than a culture creating these killers.
The Democrat Party's goal has always been about taking our guns, one step at a time, as done in Liberal Europe. This gun control debate has nothing to do with saving lives, because drunk driver background checks in bars would save thousand more lives, and you hear nothing from them when it comes to alcohol.
It's all about taking our guns so a Big controlling Government can control the people.
It's obviously our culture creating these soulless killers because it hardly ever happened before. What changed? Why were mass shootings in school not a problem decades ago?
Stop acting the Left wing Progressive fools, swallowing all this fake news and anti Gun lunacy. Use the brain in your head and try getting to the bottom of this problem so we might actually save the lives of future children.
What's your answer, taking away all guns that hold over 7 rounds of ammo? So you are ok with just seven children being killed? What do you do when the killer uses knives, poison, bombs, trucks, fire? How about addressing the core problem in this immoral self love culture whereby our children are sacrificed for convenience through No Restriction abortions, or abandoned by parents chasing after greener pastures. Look at the garbage Hollywood puts our for our teens to see, all in the name of money.
We have a moral problem in this nation since God was separated from our public. Try putting two and two together. It's not the gun!
The problem today with school shootings has absolutely nothing to do with guns, because decades ago there were guns all over the place.
Teens could easily get guns, and our schools were still very safe!
Except they weren't safe. You just believe they were because you've had no coverage of whatever time you're referring to and it suits your point if they were. The media today covers what happens today because it's more emotionally impactful, so that's all you hear about. I don't blame you for consequently thinking things were better before.
As convenient for you as it would be if it were the fault of hollywood movies, it has already been shown that they have little correlation to real life violence. Rather it seems you're just scapegoating using subjects you disagree with. I'm not sure what you mean by self-love culture though, could you elaborate for me please?
Actually it's a good thing you mention cars, because the sentiment is the same. Taking the case of cars, many people die all the time from road accidents and misuse. Accidents and misuse alone do not cause casualties however, it's the combination with the lethal nature of a speeding 1-2 ton object that results in fatalities. As a result, many restrictions have already been put in place on the operation of cars. Perhaps they sound familiar.
You need to pass a theory test requiring a 95% success rate alongside a practical test with no tolerance for any significant mistakes, despite the chance based nature of accidents, all to obtain a licence. You cannot be significantly intoxicated while using cars. Speed limits are imposed to limit both the probability and potential lethality of accidents. A series of rules are in place that try to ensure that the car is being used properly and maintained such as to limit accidents. All the regulation over cars has helped lessen the death toll in a society where everyone owns and uses a car, but it's still not enough, with self-driving cars being a comparably ideal solution; removing the human from the situation.
You can draw parallels to gun licences, weapon type restrictions and an overall gun ban.
We put up with the exorbitant death toll from car accidents because of the importance they hold in our lives, but even driving looks to be coming to an end, where non-recreational driving will likely become illegal. Guns hold no such importance in our lives, I don't see why the deaths they enable should be accepted. Even if I supposed you're right that our culture develops killers in a way never seen before, it's easier to remove the guns than change the culture. Removing the guns results in less lethal means for these supposed killers to be able to kill with, leaving knives, bats and fists. Just like how removing human driven cars leaves bicycles and pedestrians.
Also, you've only been arguing against gun homicides. There's also suicide and accidents via guns which poses a significant problem as well and actually double the death count of gun homicides. Even ignoring homicide altogether, you can make an argument to ban guns to reduce overall deaths in the US.
Stop being a deceptive loser swallowing what fake news tells you.
I WENT TO SCHOOL 50 YEARS AGO AND GUESS WHAT? There were no mass shootings in school. We had TV and we had the news telling us about such things if they were happening. It's not the gun!
Just because smug arrogant people like yourself think you have the right to decide if a gun is important to others who want to protect their families, does not give you the right to decide what's important to me and millions of Americans who believe our gun rights are VERY IMPORTANT!
Back ground checks for repeat drunk drivers would save far more lives than your ludicrous gun restrictions. It's not the car, it's the alcohol consumed by people who have no caring for those they might kill on the road. Back ground checks on these repeat DWI drivers before they buy that alcohol would save many lives, but of course you don't want to be inconvenienced when it comes to things you like.
Lives only matter to people like you as long as you are not the one being inconvenienced.
Stop being a deceptive loser swallowing what fake news tells you.
You consider wikipedia to be fake news? Also I've been arguing against guns for years now, I didn't just pop up after recent mass shootings.
The majority of people in schools don't experience mass shootings personally. Arguing from an individual basis is useless. Perhaps you didn't hear about mass shootings as a kid, but that link shows that they happened. The US has grown by 50% and shootings have gone up proportionally.
It's not the gun!
It is partially the gun. If the gun is removed then eventually criminals have to resort to less lethal means to kill. Accidents involving guns simply won't happen at all. Attempting suicide will become less successful. Crime, suicide and accidents will still occur, but deaths resulting from them will be less frequent. Countries that employ gun bans show a period of increased crime-related deaths followed by a long term decrease in deaths. The net benefit is obvious.
Back ground checks for repeat drunk drivers would save far more lives than your ludicrous gun restrictions.
I can't tell whether you've grasped it since you've not addressed it, but my point was that restrictions on car usage that limit the severity of accidents has dampened the death toll they cause. Also, yes, you're probably right about saving more lives with further driving restrictions than further gun restrictions, but they're not mutually exclusive. We can have both!
you don't want to be inconvenienced when it comes to things you like.
Except I neither drink nor drive, but cars are essential for most people in our current state for work and transport. Your gun sees less use than your car, and when it is used, it's to either kill or threaten. This actually describes your position. You like guns, or at least think the right to own guns is important therefore you ignore the deaths they cause. I'm not talking about just homicides, but accidents and suicides too. I won't condemn you for that, but it's something that should be addressed by the us as a whole. It's also something you flat out ignored in my previous post.
Lives only matter to people like you as long as you are not the one being inconvenienced.
Even after a gun ban you could still play with them recreationally in certain areas. Having them as a means for defence is not a viable solution, as can be seen in other countries.
Just wondering, let's say hypothetically a new more deadly weapon is created. For example, a device where you input a profile and the person is killed. Should this device be available for anyone to purchase?
I've listened to you change the subject to cars for the last time! I SAID ALCOHOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More restrictions on the sale of alcohol to possible DWI offenders would save many more lives, but people like you say nothing about a much worse danger to our children.
If you say there should be more done about both alcohol and guns, then start with the one that kills the most children.... ALCOHOL!
I know, I read your argument. Not allowing drunk people to drive is a driving restriction. I'm not changing the subject either, its an analogy and a similar parallel scenario, one that you brought up in the first place.
people like you say nothing about a much worse danger to our children.
Not sure what exactly you're referring to here, but it doesn't matter, since you're employing misdirection again, pointing to something aside from guns and saying that that's worse.
start with the one that kills the most children.... ALCOHOL!
Yup, there's the redirection. Though I agree, alcohol should be banned too. Alcohol is certainly worse than guns. Should be a class B or A drug. It's funny that you think alcohol should be outright banned instead of treating the culture that abuses it; the way you think about guns.
Your reply contributed nothing new or relevant here, I'm not going to argue with you if you won't even have the decency to bother to address any of my counters.
I have said many times that I am not looking for more back ground checks when buying alcohol. It's the person behind the weapon of choice, not the weapon whether guns or alcohol.
I'm using this analogy to show the true goal of Democrats and Liberals. They don't care about saving lives. They want our guns!
I would be ok with back ground checks for DWI offenders and criminals whether guns or alcohol as long as they can do it quickly.
I'm using this analogy to show the true goal of Democrats and Liberals. They don't care about saving lives. They want our guns!
That may or may not be true, I doubt it, but I have no way of knowing for sure. But it doesn't matter, the intentions of whichever political group are irrelevant to the affect guns have on death rates in the US and that they should consequently be further regulated in line with the final objective of being removed entirely.
I am curious though, why do you think Democrats and Liberals want to take your guns?
Look at Liberal Europe. They took their guns one step at a time. It took England approximately 100 years of never ending gun restrictions to finally take their guns.
The Democrat Party has become closet Socialist and love European Liberalism. They are getting more Liberal every year. There is only one reason that they single out the gun when it comes to saving lives. They want to take our guns.
Alcohol kills far more people than mass killings, and with every drunk driving death, never a word out of their mouth. How come the lives of children killed from drunk drivers never hits the fake news head lines? Where is the outrage from these pious Democrats? It's not about saving lives!
It took England approximately 100 years of never ending gun restrictions to finally take their guns.
And as a result they've seen positive effects. There's an initial surge of crime due to the imbalance between offensive and defensive means, but after about a decade the death rate due to crime falls below initial levels. This is the sort of change that's been replicated in other countries that abolish private gun ownership, and the sort of change that some want to see in America.
Ok, your last couple of arguments have said that the purpose behind gun control isn't saving lives, but taking away guns, so that makes this question increasingly important for me to understand your position. Why do you think the democrats want to take your guns?
Until you admit the obvious fact that we should first be going after the weapon that kills the most children (ALCOHOL), then you are wasting my time.
You refuse to answer why the Left does not play up every drunk driving death to push for back ground checks for possible repeat DWI drivers when buying alcohol in bars, etc.
You refuse to answer why the Left does not play up every drunk driving death to push for back ground checks for possible repeat DWI drivers when buying alcohol in bars
My guess is partly the same as yours, I reckon the left don't want to let go of alcohol, much like everyone else, but that's no excuse, I think alcohol should be banned too. There's also the fact that it's already being addressed to an extent. There are separate penalties for drunk driving, warnings, increasing test requirements for driving in general, and if it's the same in the US as it is in the UK, you get your licence taken away. Not much use in denying the sale of alcohol to prevent drunk drivers from driving if they don't have a licence anyway. The fallacy is that these solutions, as with your solution, are only effective when they are caught.
So tell me what freedoms you are willing to outlaw to save lives? Fatty foods, alcohol, cigarettes, boating, mountain climbing, hang gliding, swimming, etc. etc.
These activities all cause loss of life. Do you want to live in a police state for the sake of saving some lives?
People like you are very scary. You are the thought police who want to ban things you don't like. You are the moral zealots who will force your will on others, all for the sake of positive effects.
I don't want to live in your world. I enjoy my freedoms living without big Government watching my every move.
First off, I'm not talking about using guns as a hobby, I'm talking about private ownership. This whole post is misrepresenting and exaggerating my position. Well at least it qualifies as a reply this time.
Obesity, alcohol, and cigarettes cause deaths on a much larger scale than boating, mountain climbing, etc. Aside from the first 3, the hobbies you mention kill around a thousand people a year combined. Therefore little action is taken against these hobbies, much less a ban. Also, banning private gun ownership doesn't mean removing the possibility of using guns as a hobby. You'd still be able to have shooting ranges if the market desired it, you just wouldn't be able to take the gun home with you and shoot yourself, or the wife that cheated on you or that black kid down the road you think you need to kill before he kills you, or your 3 year old child that blows their head off by accident.
I'm not advocating for a police state, I would hate that too. This isn't a systematic banning of whichever aspect of society causes the most deaths either. Everything should be qualitatively judged for its positive and negative contributions. Things like cars are essential to our modern lifestyle. Guns are not. I'm not just trying to be rid of things I dislike either. I like guns. Many people like guns. You think that the sheer number of action movies or the fact that shooters are the most popular video game genre are for nothing? It's even somewhat popular to flex over simply owning multiple guns. My guess is that people like the power. However in the case of guns, I don't believe Americans simply privately owning guns is worth the sheer number of deaths that leads to. I'm of the same opinion for alcohol, cigarettes, and obesity.
That's twice you've ignored the question. Why do you think your guns are being targeted if not to save lives?
