CreateDebate


Debate Info

25
25
They are too dangerous. People kill people
Debate Score:50
Arguments:97
Total Votes:51
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 They are too dangerous. (20)
 
 People kill people (20)

Debate Creator

Shrektastic(32) pic



Ban on guns? Specifically "assault weapons"

Hilary Clinton has expressed her dislike of firearms many times. Namely, if she were to be elected president of the United States, she might have a chance of passing a ban on "assault" weapons, like the one passed during her husband's term.

They are too dangerous.

Side Score: 25
VS.

People kill people

Side Score: 25
1 point

Restriction of certain weapons is certainly a first step then there needs to be regulations and control on who can own a gun.

In Australia we have strict conditions on how and who can purchase a weapon and what type we are allowed to own.

First we need a license, then we need a permit to buy, which usually takes about six months and involves a police check.

There are strict conditions on keeping the weapon at home in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor and wall with a separate safe for the ammunition. The whereabouts of the keys are only allowed to be known to the licensed gun owner.

The police have the right to enter my property to check that I have complied with the regulations and have a current license.

That is what I call gun control.

Side: They are too dangerous.
FromWithin(8240) Disputed
2 points

That is what I call the next step to outright Government control of te people. By the time I got my locked gun and locked ammunition out of their safe, my family would be dead and the cops will show up after the carnage, as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.

People like you are truly scary. What kind of fool fears a law abiding citizen's right to keep his firearms at home where HE DECIDES! There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN... LIVE WITH IT FOOL! Do you know how many people's lives have been saved by a fire arm in the home? Nah, you just want to control the people with the laughble excuse of saftey in our homes from accidental shootings.

Governments are power hungry control freaks and will take all your freedoms if fools allow them to.

Side: People kill people
Nomoturtle(856) Disputed
3 points

There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN

these accidents are needless as they are non-existent in countries where guns are restricted. and despite your dismissive tone on accidents with guns, they account for over 2/3 of gun related deaths in america.

as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.

a good example where heavily restricting guns has been effective:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

then in the us you have this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2879650/Study-shows-annual-gun-deaths-United-States-catching-killed-car-crashes.html

but banning guns is just one solution that other countries haven't followed and yet their gun related deaths are remarkably low compared to america. the us really just seems irresponsible from the statistics. also, the us may not be the worst in firearm related deaths but are only topped by developing and third world countries such as jamaica and ecuador.

http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/germanjoys/2012/12/gun-deaths-in-germany-and-the-us.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbyfirearm-relateddeath_rate

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/ asia/china-us-school-attack/

Side: They are too dangerous.
1 point

That is what I call the next step to outright Government control of te people. By the time I got my locked gun and locked ammunition out of their safe, my family would be dead and the cops will show up after the carnage, as they do today after a crimminall or terrorist (who will always get guns) kills everyone.

The latter part is a good explanation of why the whole separation of gun and ammunition thing is nonsense, but how does that have anything to do with "the next step to outright Government control of [te] people"?

There is no one that loves his family more and cares for the safety of his children more than a father.

What about a mother?

ACCIDENTS HAPPEN... LIVE WITH IT FOOL

I think he is advocating a misguided attempt to manage accidents, which is not the worse motivation in the world. Hardly reason to insult him.

Do you know how many people's lives have been saved by a fire arm in the home?

I am a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but if you are going to throw something like this out, you need to back it up with figures for it to have legitimacy.

Side: They are too dangerous.
flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

Just curious why you disagreed with my point about ammunition when it was the same point you made.

Side: They are too dangerous.
skyfish(276) Clarified
1 point

By the time I got my locked gun and locked ammunition out of their safe...

you seem utterly unprepared for being called up to defend your nation against enemies foreign and domestic.

its not a "quick draw" contest you know.... its WAR.

Side: They are too dangerous.
flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

There are strict conditions on keeping the weapon at home in a locked gun safe bolted to the floor and wall with a separate safe for the ammunition. The whereabouts of the keys are only allowed to be known to the licensed gun owner.

I think one of the arguments against gun control is self defense. If the ammunition is kept separate from the weapon, it would be harder to defend oneself.

Side: They are too dangerous.
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

that depends on how well "regulated" you are with your weapon and what sort of time frame you are expecting to be notified of the need for these weapons.

the notion that an individual is going to whip his loaded gun out from under his pillow and shoot a burglar dead from a sound sleep is complete bullshit.

we spend 1/3 of our lives COMPLETELY oblivious to who is in the room with us... by then its WAY too late for a gun... you had better have a bat handy.

Side: People kill people

I praise Hillary Clinton and assault weapons should be banned from the face of the Earth.

Side: They are too dangerous.
americano(1) Disputed
1 point

Can I ask the reason why assault weapons should be banned?

Side: People kill people
4 points

He isn't going to respond and didn't know the answer.

Side: People kill people
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

"banned" is not the correct word.

heavily regulated would be more accurate.

under the last "ban" that expired (because GWB is an idiot) you could still get many of the weapons, you just needed to go thru more effort to do it.

.

the reason is that these kinds of weapons have features or functions that can only be legitimately managed in a military setting (armories, live fire training, regular drills.. etc).

.

unless you are willing to sign up to be that WELL REGULATED, then you can do just fine with an ordinary rifle, without the grande launcher, or the mussel flash suppressor, or the break down stock... et. al.

Side: They are too dangerous.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: They are too dangerous.
1 point

Isn't it kind of a leading question when you refer to them as "assault weapons?"

Side: People kill people
flewk(1193) Clarified
1 point

I believe that was the point.

Side: They are too dangerous.
1 point

people do, with guns.... that's why we need to regulate the PEOPLE who have the guns.

simple, no?

Side: People kill people
1 point

We don't enforce the regulations we already have. Why create more?

Side: People kill people
skyfish(276) Clarified
1 point

that's the stupidest argument, i've seen against gun control regulation.

its akin to, we don't catch all the murderers, so why have laws against murder.

Side: They are too dangerous.
1 point

How come no one gets upset about the real dangers in our lives. Statistically, having a pool is far more dangerous for ones family than having a gun. Where is the outrage? Motorcycles are an unnecessary form of transportation and are highly dangerous, causing more deaths than guns. Ban motorcycles? Of the 3 things the ATF is involved with, Alcohol and Tobacco are far more deadly than guns, yet here we are. I really don't get it...

Side: People kill people