CreateDebate


Debate Info

87
66
Not for gun control Gun control
Debate Score:153
Arguments:133
Total Votes:157
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Not for gun control (69)
 
 Gun control (56)

Debate Creator

gratedebator(283) pic



EXTREMELY serious debate.




Watch the part at 1:48 about the professional criminal who advocates gun control heavily because it will create less competition.

If you are for gun control, you need to rethink your life

Not for gun control

Side Score: 87
VS.

Gun control

Side Score: 66
3 points

A lot of people don't understand that there is a protection aspect of having a gun. These videos show that.

Note: I think the guy in the red jacket is totally fake. But, the videos of people defending themselves is very real.

Side: Not for gun control
2 points

I think the guy in the red jacket is totally fake.

Does it matter if he is fake? His point still stands: Criminals WANT gun control so that citizens are not able to stop them from doing whatever they do.

Also, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

Side: Gun control
Cartman(18192) Disputed
3 points

Yes, it does matter. That tactic is used by liberals to ban guns. The truth is the defense against libs, not silly lies.

Side: Not for gun control
Jace(5220) Disputed
2 points

Do they actually? An unregulated gun economy makes acquisition of firearms easier for criminals as well, whereas tighter control restricts the number of unregistered firearms while keeping registered firearms in the hands of people arguably more likely to use them responsibly.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

Gun are used over 1 million times a year to stop criminals. No wonder they want them outlawed.

Side: Gun control
Paradox44(736) Disputed
2 points

I agree that there is a protection method, but it can also be used as an outlet for anger or depression. More guns on the street may lead for guns to become a more prevalent outlet for stress.

Side: Gun control
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

I can make unsubstantiated claims as well. As an outlet for anger and depression guns can help people cope in hard times. They can go to shooting ranges and shoot their guns and feel better. Since they feel better there is less need for doctors to prescribe them medicine. Thus, health care costs will go down if there are more guns.

Let's stick to stuff that actually happens.

Side: Not for gun control
3 points

The voice over for the guy in the "Red Hoodie" IS A BULLSHIT AND A LIE, I know street thugs and they do not talk like that, the voice over is a made up lie by some anti gun control nut bag, most likely the NRA.

However I am for the right to own a gun but also feel that a better systems needs to be in place to keep guns away from the unstable.

I will blow a motherfuckers head clean off there shoulders if someone ever tried to harm me or my family with a gun, that being said I hate guns and I do wish the world can live without them but realistically that is not going to happen so if you own a gun then so will I, for protection only.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

You really think criminals, who already have unregisterted guns, want other citizens to have them?

If I was a criminal, and I used a gun, I would want guns to be controlled so that there is a far, far, far less chance of being shot while i rob/rape/murder

Side: Gun control
Warjin(1577) Disputed
2 points

Did you even read my post? I said I am for guns but still want better of control to keep guns away from crazy people, the thing is there are a lot of gun owners that are just as unstable as the criminals that they want to defend themselves against, my point is no one that is unstable should own a gun.

My list of people that should not own a gun:

1. people with any metal instability.

2. people with anger issues,alcoholics and drug addicts.

3. any and all fundamentalist of any cult or religion.

4. children.

I feel that if you want to own a gun that person should undergo a series of psychological exams, I mean we require those test for people to get a drivers license, both physical and mental but why not guns?

Another thing is make it law that every gun in American needs to have a GPS tracking chip, to me this is a more then fair compromise for all gun owners, Americans need to find a balance for gun owners that still keep our freedom in tacked but at the same time keep everyone safe, if every American owned a gun we would turn back to the Wild Wild West where gun is law and in a sense ripping true American freedom away for everybody.

Side: Not for gun control
2 points

Only bit of criticism I'll toss your way is this. That video with the criminal endorsing gun control was a scripted skit made to make a point. But the rest of the video brought up many great examples of how gun ownership brings crime down and makes people safer. Plus bonus points for using a video, always a favoret tactic of mine, to Many people on this sight post inks to long winded articles but showing is always better than telling.

Side: Not for gun control

!!!! NEW UPDATE INFO !!!!

Since I suck at being direct, let me explain this debate is about gun confiscation, and what the requirements would be to have one, or you can argue to take guns away.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

Stupid American. "I had to shoot him. I was me or my baby!" No it wasn't he broke into your house to steal. He didnt deserve the death penalty.

As for the guy saying that gun control reduces competition... in the UK if he was a known criminal he would be searched on the street for guns. If he was found carrying a gun he would be locked up for around 5 years. Gun control does not help criminals.

Side: Not for gun control
2 points

LOL.

The man had another accomplice with him, don't you think two men, probably fucked up on drugs, if they saw a defenseless woman standing there, don't you think something like, oh idk, rape might happen?

And you obviously aren't familiar with the great law of america that if anyone enters your property without permission, you are free to do what you choose to this invasion of your security.

if he was a known criminal

He would be a REALLY shitty criminal if cops knew who he was. And its hard to identify people with hoods on, hats, glasses, etc...

If you are not from america then there is no way you can possibly fathom the amount of corruption and crime that runs rampant in our politics/corporations

Side: Gun control
Atrag(5556) Disputed
1 point

The man had another accomplice with him, don't you think two men, probably fucked up on drugs, if they saw a defenseless woman standing there, don't you think something like, oh idk, rape might happen?

1) There was no evidence that he was on drugs 2) Since when does drugs turn a thief into someone who would harm a baby 3) There was no evidence he was going to rape her.

And you obviously aren't familiar with the great law of america that if anyone enters your property without permission, you are free to do what you choose to this invasion of your security.

I am familiar with your laws. It is barbaric.

He would be a REALLY shitty criminal if cops knew who he was. And its hard to identify people with hoods on, hats, glasses, etc...

There is such a thing as a known criminal.

If you are not from america then there is no way you can possibly fathom the amount of corruption and crime that runs rampant in our politics/corporations

I'm in Spain. We have much bigger problems with corruption. This doesnt justify the public being permitted to hand out the death sentence to each other.

Side: Not for gun control

If you want to support zoophilia sign this pitition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/michigan-state-house-make-zoophilia-legal

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

Gun control is such a controversial topic because both sides are equally valid and points made on either side are both equally applicable. Now that said there are certain complications with implementing either idea. Implementing gun control of course reduces the availability of deadly firearms to those who could possibly do harm. However illegal drugs are of course illegal and yet they are still produced and imported enmasse into America from its borders so its safe to say that a ban on domestic guns will just increase the demand for illegal firearms to be imported so criminals can still get them with relative ease. However without gun control, domestic guns become easier to ascertain but there are more civilians armed in any given area. For instance a gunman enters a mall and opens fire on the people inside. In an ordinary shopping mall numerous people will have a concealed firearm on there person at any given time. Now imagine that mall security is being held up by fleeing people that leaves those with concealed weapons to neutralize the threat. Guns are good for some and bad for others. I think we need to look into the weapons used in shootings and see if they are stolen or bought with a license. Most likely they are obtained illegally meaning that no matter what regulations you put in place those with bad intentions will still obtain firearms. that being said, our best hope for preventing more tragedy is arming those good citizens to act like a hidden police force to hopefully neutralize threats before they can cause considerable harm. Then of course arises the concern of laws like Stand Your Ground. Armed people killing innocents because they feel "threatened". A perfect solution is probably not obtainable but I think removing ALL firearms is a bad idea. Tighter regulations I do agree with but not the complete ban of firearms.

Side: Not for gun control

If the point is saving lives, we should focus on the real dangers, like swimming pools. Pools are significantly more dangerous in the home than a gun is.

What about the most dangerous machine in history? The automobile. We should make cars safer. Once we have tackled the big issues like cars and swimming pools, then we can start to think about the little (though seemingly more scary) problems. Like mass shootings.

Side: Not for gun control

I am 100% against gun control but that's because life is too short to post on the losing side ;)

Side: Not for gun control

I like shooting people in the face, so dont take my guns I am an American and I breed with my siblings and I am erectable and I gimmie guns now.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

First off for the very obvious. This is our right. Nobody can take away our rights. Now for the more complicated aspects. Cities in America where gun control is the strongest have the most gun killing because a criminal is a criminal and doesn't care for the law. Also when a criminal know that nobody can defend themselves against a gun they are going to feel that they can attack and get away with it. Where I live it takes twenty to thirty minutes for a police officer to come out here. In those twenty minutes a lot can happen especially since both my parents work and me and my sister stay him alone a lot. My house has been a target for many years and we know that. That's why when I was twelve I was taken out not only to learn what a gun can do but how to use one. I now am a sharp shooter but the guns aren't where I can get them easily. If I were attacked while my parents were gone I would release my dogs after my attacker and bust the door into my parents bedroom where I would find the guns. All of this would be done after I called the police but since it will take them twenty minutes a criminal would have a lot of time to act against me. I am seventeen now and I still know how to defend myself and have been the scary situation where someone tried to break on my house while I was alone. I was too young to understand guns because I hadn't been taught yet and let me tell you I was terrified. Older I feel more secure with a gun locked in my parents bedroom. Huns should be given out freely to the people so we can not only have our right but so we can protect ourselves. The door on my house is no longer locked for my protection but for yours.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Side: Not for gun control
3 points

Wholly unregulated gun control is entirely illogical and inadvisable. As with any market product, particularly potentially dangerous ones, guns demand some degree of regulation. This debate should not be gun control versus no gun control, but a discussion of how much regulation is reasonable or ideal.

Side: Gun control
2 points

Your use of negative words is very confusing.

Which regulations do you like?

Side: Not for gun control
Jace(5220) Clarified
1 point

Sorry? If you point me to something more specific I can clarify.

Honestly, I think guns are largely a matter of secondary importance and receive more attention than they merit so I have not given great consideration to the details. I can say though that I support mandatory firearm safety training and licensing, as well as restrictions upon the availability of non-defensive and non-hunting firearms.

Side: Not for gun control
2 points

Obviously, but this is about gun confiscation actually, which I should have stated I guess but uh yeah...

Anyways, the only regulations there should be is a background check and a safety course.

And a psychological screening somehow maybe.

Side: Not for gun control
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Yes, you probably should have. Confiscation similarly has logical applications and is not a clear cut either-or question, in my opinion.

Background checks, safety course, and stricter restrictions upon non-defensive and non-hunting firearms.

Psych screening I oppose because it is ineffectual and problematic independent of the gun issue. Furthermore, restricting the rights of individuals because they have a diagnosable condition rather than because they have done anything seems wrong to me. Additionally, those with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators (and are more likely to be victims than those without mental illness).

Side: Gun control
Grugore(856) Disputed
1 point

Actually, we need to get tougher on criminals who use guns.

Side: Not for gun control
Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Actually, we need to address the root causes of crime and violence. Gun policy is a secondary issue at best, and by extension deterrence is a largely ineffectual response.

Side: Gun control
2 points

I would like to see more regulations simply due to the possibility of an attack on a school, mall, theater, etc.

Side: Gun control
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

What regulations need to be added to prevent people from going into a school that has already legally been declared a gun free zone?

Side: Not for gun control
Paradox44(736) Clarified
1 point

Heavier punishments for crimes involving firearms. Increase the backround checks and intended usage of a firearm if purchased. Limited availability to the public. Restrictions on certain weapons. There are mostly likely many more possibile ways to add regulations.

Side: Not for gun control
1 point

That's the point. Criminals don't obey the law. That's why we need swift punishment that fits the crime. A life for a life. Makes perfect sense to me. How many murders, and other violent crimes, are committed by repeat offenders? Remove them from the gene pool. Problem solved.

Side: Not for gun control
2 points

gun control is not anti-gun..................................................................

Side: Gun control
1 point

If you are for gun control, you need to rethink your life

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that a "great debater" wouldn't assume that, because someone disagrees them on gun policy, that they must rethink their life. You know nothing at all about virtually everyone who does (or doesn't for that matter) support some degree of gun control.

Side: Gun control

Your use of negative words is very confusing.

Which regulations do you like?

Side: Gun control