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.
I don't quite understand "cause" in this context. But, no matter how you interpret it, it isn't a crime. It may not be good parenting, but that's not the question.
If "cause" means allowing children, at ANY age to shoot a gun, it isn't a good idea. 3 year olds don't quite understand the permanence of death. But, I would support a law that specifies a minimum age somewhere over 3. Maybe way over 3.
I was raised in the west and it wasn't unusual at all for me to shoot. When I was 7, I won a Daisy BB gun in a drawing. I plunked at tin cans. At 10, I had a .22, and plunked at NRA targets. With all that plunking, I became a crack shot, and won a Distinguished Rifle medal years later in the Navy.
excon
PS> Hey nomshit, or developing, or juice fuck.. Come on down! You ain“t hiding from nobody.
IMO the American gun culture has reached epic levels of stupidity. Anytime there's a shooting, instead of wanting to disarm the shooter, the main idea seems to be to arm everybody else.
I don't really understand your question. What do you mean by "cause"? If you're asking if I think I'm at fault if I call a kid fat and he shoots me in the face, then no. If I'm murdering his friend and I catch a bullet, then sure.
There's a big problem in life when we start holding other people responsible for our own decisions. I believe that children should hold diminished levels of responsibility for their decisions in comparison to adults, but that's not to say I approve of children shooting people for trivial reasons.
I worded the title after a separate debate by the same name was closed.
We do need to hold individuals responsible, individually. That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.
That's why it's a complex matter to get the guns out of the hands of shooters without taking them from law abiding gun owners.
No, that isn't complex at all, because if guns are banned, then gun owners cease to be law abiding. You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.
You can't use flawed laws as a defence against propositions to change those laws because that's circular reasoning.
That's not what I did, but if I had it wouldn't be an example of circular reasoning. I was referring to getting guns out of the hands of criminals while leaving innocent people alone. Declaring those people future criminals to justify the law that will criminalize them actually is circular reasoning.
A gun ban is illegal. It's against the supreme law of the land. Banning guns is therefore already criminal.
You can't characterize good laws as flawed to justify flawed laws. It's not circular reasoning, but it is relying on a false premise.
You said individuals should be held responsible for their actions. Now you're suggesting criminalizing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Your internal contradictions need to be addressed.
That's exactly what you did. You tried to use the phrase "law-abiding gun owners" as a reason why we can't disarm ordinary people. If we lived in a pre-industrialized society where rape was legal, but certain rapists were murdering their victims afterwards, you could use the precise same fallacy and argue, "Well, we can't very well punish all the law-abiding rapists".
A gun ban is illegal.
You're doing the exact same thing. Using the law as an excuse for why we can't amend the law is circular reasoning.
You're future criminalizing law abiding citizens as cause for creating the law that would criminalize them. That's circular reasoning and it's not what I did.
I wasn't even discussing gun bans when I suggested that penalizing criminals and not law abiding citizens is complex in this context. That post was in keeping with your statement that individuals should be held accountable for their own actions, not those of others. You abandoned that notion as soon as it failed to meet your wants.
Of course 2A can be amended, through the amendment process. There is 0 political will for such. The result is that a gun ban is illegal and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That's logically linear and factual.
Lol. What? If we make something illegal and you do it anyway, you're not a law abiding citizen. You're a criminal. That's how the law works you buffoon. That's how the law has always worked. Your ridiculous circular argument can be applied to any one of a hundred different examples to illustrate how stupid it is, including 18th century slave-owners. Oh noes! We can't make slavery illegal because that will "future criminalize law abiding citizens". Lol. Shut up.
That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers. When I pointed that out, you said they wouldn't be law abiding citizens. That's a circular argument justifying the proposed law. Those people ARE law abiding citizens. You can't point to future criminalization as a defense for the proposed law.
This is very obvious. Get off this fallacy so we can proceed.
That proposed criminalization is holding law abiding citizens responsible for the actions of law breakers.
You are ignoring the responses to your illegible arguments and repeating the same illegible arguments. This is irrational and it demonstrates that when your beliefs are refuted, you will simply try to push them through with brute force.
A person who does something which is against the law is not a law abiding citizen. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you, but apparently at least three. If I outlaw slavery, you are no longer a law abiding citizen if you have slaves in your shed. Understand?
The more guns there are in circulation the higher the instances of willful and accidental shootings, many of which will result in death.
Responsible parents will know that it is dangerous to let children play with matches and criminally negligent to permit them to have access to firearms.
Those who have guns and young children in their homes should unload their weapons and keep them under lock and key, the children that is.
Well, being allowed to play with matches as a child would be commensurate with the irresponsible parenthood we would expect from a brain damaged diseased whore who still hasn't figured out who your da is.
''Now son, there's a box of matches, go and play with those on the Freeway''.
Not allowing children to play with matches is a safety issue in the same vein as keeping them away from firearms.
As your input on this forum is adversely affected as a consequence of your mental faculties being severely impaired by the venereal disease you contracted from your whore mother at birth reference to her profession is wholly applicable.
It is a crime to enslave child soldiers. That's an absolute fact. You wonder why I have closed debates? Because it is to prevent snowflakes from spreading lies. Sucks for them.
A 300 percent increase of a miniscule number is still a miniscule number
Wait a second. Are you telling us that you would intentionally increase your daughter's chance of killing herself by 300 percent? Wow. I'm truly thankful I don't have you as a father.
Also you, several hours ago:-
The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides
You change your beliefs like the wind changes direction it seems. You're a truly insincere and -- given what you are prepared to do to your own daughter --- dangerous individual.
My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun. Which, by the way is mere correlation. You may find a person is 5 times more likely to commit suicide if they use vinegar as a cleaner in their home. Mere correlation.
I can be dangerous on occasion. I took up skydiving this year.
My presence in her life will more that counteract the presence of a gun.
Stop talking absolute fucking rubbish. Show me the statistics illustrating that your "presence in her life" reduces her chances of committing suicide by over 300 percent.
The moment you begin to lose an argument is the same moment you start fabricating bullshit in an effort to maintain your skewered belief system. It's an awful habit and it makes you extremely unlikeable.
Well, suicides are twice as likely to be fatherless. And since I had her assigned a girl at birth, she is 7 times less likely to commit suicide. So my presence more than offsets the correlation of a presence of a gun with suicide.
Plus, chances of suicide are only about. .14% for everyone, let alone women who are far less. Tripling a miniscule number is still a miniscule number.
I'm not sure you're getting this. Biology determines the gender. At least, if you believe that sex and gender are the same thing. The father can't magic up a penis.
And females are very unlikely to commit suicide by any means
There are almost 10,000 female suicides in the US every year you dumb fuck. Just because more men commit suicide than women doesn't make female suicides statistically insignificant. You're misrepresenting a relative (i.e. to men) statistic as an objective statistic.
Either way, your daughter is 300 percent more likely to commit suicide than she would ordinarily be if you give her access to a gun, so you're objectively a shit father.
Golly, 10 thousand sure does seem like a high likelihood kind of number... until you consider that's out of 168 million women. Lucky for me and my daughter I understand what unlikely looks like.
Men are unlikely to commit suicide too by the way. And if you have a gun in your home, it doesn't induce suicidal ideation. A gun should be a problem for you, because you should definitely have suicidal ideation. It's not for me or my daughter.
Golly, 10 thousand sure does seem like a high likelihood kind of number... until you consider that's out of 168 million women.
It's 10 thousand per year, moron. And the likelihood of the event has no statistical connection to how many other women exist. It does however, have a statistical connection to whether you give your daughter access to a firearm.
Men are unlikely to commit suicide too by the way
Amarel, please shut your stupid mouth. By the same twisted quasi-logic (i.e. population versus confirmed incidents) tigers are unlikely to eat humans, but only an idiot would throw their daughter into a tiger pit.
The likelihood of the event absolutely has to do with how many people have an event occur vs how many do not. Suicide is highly unlikely. For people who do not suffer suicidal ideation, the likelihood is zero, even if there's a gun in the home.
Your hoplophobia causes you to put a high degree of agency in inanimate objects.
The likelihood of the event absolutely has to do with how many people have an event occur vs how many do not.
Suicides do not "occur", you idiot. They are conscious actions undertaken by people. They are not random events and so the likelihood of one person taking their own life has absolutely nothing to do with the experiences of someone else. Equally, the likelihood of me choosing to eat Italian food instead of Chinese food tonight has nothing to do with the experiences of someone else.
You are literally an idiot, Amarel. You do not have the faintest understanding of statistical probability.
What affect does the presence of a gun have on someone's conscientious decision to kill themselves?
I think you probably mean conscious, not conscientious.
A gun offers a very quick, highly effective and relatively painless method of ending a person's life. Hence, the ease by which suicide can be successfully achieved, in at least some instances, influences a person's decision about whether or not it is the most preferable option. This is especially true if that person is emotional and has a gun immediately at hand. Without the gun, the same individual might have to first go through a meticulous preparation process, during which time they have the opportunity to calm down and think more rationally.
All true. If a person is suicidal, a gun increases their chances of follow through. The vast majority of people are not suicidal, in which case a gun has no impact on suicidality. The presence of a father decreases the likelihood that such emotional disturbances will arise.
If a person is suicidal, a gun increases their chances of follow through. The vast majority of people are not suicidal
I'm not going round in circles with you, pal. The figures are perfectly clear. The US has the highest suicide rate of any wealthy nation, the laxest gun laws, and over half of all its suicides are via firearm. You can choose to believe that's all a big coincidence if you like.
You can only say that because you pick and choose what qualifies as wealthy. South Korea is much higher than the US. The US barely inches ahead of Japan, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Switzerland.
Just go shoot a gun and calm the fuck down. You need to move past this mental illness. Hoplophobia appears to seriously affect ones ability to...do anything at all
I'm not sure you're getting this. Biology determines the gender.
I'm sure you weren't listening in sex ed. Sperm determines gender. It comes from the father. Whether a person is a boy or a girl depends on the father.
You're too fuckin stupid to continue this back and forth waste of my time.
Oh, well isn't that just lovely. Clearly, you had that little closed debate therapy session because you were too cowardly to respond to me.
Well, for everyone's benefit: the comment that got Dr_Batman's panties so twisted he had to go and start a private debate with someone else, rather than face legitimate criticism. Hope y'all enjoy:
Children and guns do not mix. Ever.
Clearly, you've never met some of these kids. In our circles, we don't child-proof the guns, we gun-proof the children. Then when they get a little older, some of them can outshoot the Terminator. Think about it this way: if a parent is willing to drop $1,500 on an entry level race pistol and ammunition, they're probably teaching the kid to use it right. My daughter knew the 4 firearms safety rules better than most cops at the age of 3. There's one kid we build guns for who can put 5 bullets on 3 targets in less than a second on the shot timer.
Child soldiering is a crime.
Great news; I don't do that. Soldiering and shooting are completely separate disciplines, despite both requiring the use of firearms. Seeing me teach my 4 year old to safely and properly use a 10/22 to plink steel targets and calling it soldiering is like seeing me take her out for ice cream afterward and calling it heroin abuse just because both activities require the use of a spoon. Or, if you prefer to think of shooting as a subset skill, part of the building blocks of effective soldiering, first of all let me remind you that the United States government is really bad at teaching people to shoot, and most soldiers either don't shoot or barely qualify. Second, I'd then be just as guilty of "child soldiering" for so much as teaching them to fold their laundry, which is probably what we spent more time on in boot camp than anything else. Discipline and competence with firearms as well as folding laundry, sewing, teamwork, etc, are not only necessary skills of soldiering, they're necessary skills of life. In fact, there's quite a bit of overlap in skillsets between the two.
I don't know if you're just trying to be an antagonistic dickhead like me. More power to you, if you are. But if you take any of this seriously, I suggest that you go take a long look in the mirror, and ask yourself if you're actually retarded.
Seeing me teach my 4 year old to safely and properly use a 10/22 to plink steel targets and calling it soldiering is like seeing me take her out for ice cream afterward and calling it heroin abuse
Lol. Pretending there's a "safe and proper" way to give a gun to a 4 year old child is like saying there's a safe and proper way to sprinkle anthrax onto your cornflakes. What is actually wrong with you? I mean, apart from being ginger that is.
Nom, you're adorable, but you're intentionally retarded when it comes to any understanding of firearms. Leave this to people who've been doing this well and safely for years.
You saying that handing my kid a gun under controlled circumstances is a "bad idea" is as valid and as batshit stupid as an anti vaxxer insisting that vaccines give kids autism, and equally as informed.
If I am wrong in the head, I have thousands of customers who are no danger to themselves or society who are grateful for it.
Familiarity reduces irrational fear. You should go to a gun range. Let the instructor know that you need to be treated like a 4 year old though. That way you can catch up with SJs kids. It's your only hope of curing your phobia.
Don't try. I should've written a book with the time and words I've wasted on this ignorant cocksucker; someone might've actually read it. You can dick slap him with logic and statistics for years, and it'll be like arguing with a dog through the mail slot. If he's ever going to stop ignoring what's inconvenient to his worldview it'll be because he finally stops being a coward of his own choice.
I should've written a book with the time and words I've wasted on this ignorant cocksucker
Listen up, you semi-retarded ginger fool. Thinking it unsafe to put lethal weapons in the hands of four year old children does not make me an "ignorant cocksucker". You are a dangerously stupid idiot.
Now is a great time to think about the future and be happy. I've read this post and if I could, I want to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. You could talk about this article in the next ones you write. I'd like to learn more about it.
Supporting Evidence:
quordle game
(quordle-wordle.com)
Allow me to provide a bit of context. Yes, last Christmas I bought my 3 year old daughter a Ruger 10/22 Charger. Why and how did I do that?
I did it because I want to raise her to understand violence. Plain and simple. I want her to not be a victim. Part of that- a small part- is proficiency with firearms. So why not a BB gun, I hear you asking? Great question, there are a few good reasons. One, we had spent the last few months drilling Jeff Cooper's 4 firearm safety rules. Putting it into practice was the logical next step, and I think it's a sound theory that a bit of noise and recoil helps drive the point home that this is not a toy. Doesn't hurt either for her to see impacts on soft targets, like apples. She'll get a BB gun when I can trust her to go out into the woods and shoot with less direct supervision. Second, it's a 10/22. Aftermarket support is higher for that gun than any other rimfire rifle in the world, and it's configurable in just about any way you like. In other words, it's not something you outgrow; she'll be able to use that thing for the rest of her life. And for the rest of her life, if I do my job right, she'll have the habits to use it safely and efficiently.
Which leaves, how? How do you have a 3 year old safely use a firearm? Well, apart from a few helpful features like a benchrest, bipod, red dot optic and a lot of patience, it's really simple: first you teach them the rules, drill it into them until they know them better than most cops. Bribing them with gummy bears works wonders here. Second, when they get the gun in their hands, you don't give them the chance to be unsafe with it. You stay right behind them, correcting bad habits as they come up- making sure the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction and guiding it where necessary, keeping little fingers off of triggers, handing them ammunition only as needed, and making sure that they don't panic when they fire off their first shots. Third, is to demystify the whole subject. She knows she can come up to me and ask to look inside of the gun safe. We'll open it up, and she'll ask to look at a few different guns until she gets bored. That, in and of itself, is another great chance to teach safe handling.
So, ladies and whatevers: as I've said before, kids should be taught in the use of firearms from the time that they're physically able to hold one and mentally able to follow instructions. I've outlined how and why. Mainly to piss people off. And while I keep returning here because I apparently fall asleep to the incoherent screeching of retards, I don't give an actual fuck what any of you think about that, especially if you intentionally don't know a goddamn thing about weapons or violence.
Also, there's the whole thing about how I build custom guns. Sometimes, I'm well aware that it's for someone's kid. If someone is willing to spend $1,500 on a pistol for their kid, it's a fair bet that the kid is well trained and has demonstrated good judgement and discipline. I sleep like a log the moment I hit the mattress.
Sure. We'll get into teaching proper sight picture soon enough, but in the meantime, she can barely hit anything even with the optic. It's a cheap Holosun, nothing special.
Got that shit for free, though. Perks of working in the business.
I was taught to shoot a gun as a young kid. Later in life, two men tried to rob my home. Out of the three of us, I lived. The cops looked around, asked me what happened, and I was the only witness, so it my word against well, no one's. Any questions?
Don't need legs to work a firearm or be a marksman. And on that note, don't enter the home of someone who is. They'll win. And at this point, years later, they'll never make it to the house. I've made sure of that. They won't make it past the fence much less to the open field. And if they somehow did by pure luck, they wouldn't make it across the field. And if somehow they were to catch lightning in a bottle twice, either the dogs will kill them, or they might grab a door knob that wouldn't be advised to grab. I'd tell you more specifics, but some things may or may not be legal. Nevertheless, no cops will be involved for anyone to have to decide. Let's call it the law of the jungle. If someone hypothetically wandered onto a large, hypothetical piece of property and hypothetically disappeared, I have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, sometimes people just vanish, and the community never knows why. In this hypothetical situation, the community wouldn't care even if they did know why. The hills have eyes they say because they do.