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 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.
Lying. Read the second sentence. I say something in the first sentence. If you don't understand what I am saying, keep reading. The second sentence explained that the truth can beat libs and we don't need to make stuff up.
how is it being made up? it is extremely logical for criminals to want to have guns illegal seeing as how they already have unregistered guns, why the fuck would a criminal register their gun or even want to have their gun registered or even have other civilians having guns?
you are not making logical sense here, put your feet in the shoes of the criminal, do you want other people to have guns? no you really dont
Put your feet in the shoes of someone who reads. I didn't say why I thought it was fake. I said it was fake. You asked why it mattered if it is fake. You shouldn't use fake stuff just because you think it accurately portrays a viewpoint you want to demonstrate.
it is extremely logical for criminals to want to have guns illegal
That doesn't mean they didn't have a fake person speaking.
you are not making logical sense here, put your feet in the shoes of the criminal, do you want other people to have guns? no you really dont
I didn't say that criminals wouldn't be happy that they would be charged with less crimes if caught, I just said that it is bad to put a fake criminal in a video.
Here are some of the problems I have:
Nobody says they are in the business of murder.
Criminals don't refer to what they do as a business like he did.
Someone dressed in a hood would not refer to his friends as associates.
i dont think you understand the street life very well.
it does NOT mater if the guy was an actor or not, the point that he made still stands: criminals do not want other citizens to have guns, its as simple as that you cant argue against it
and he didnt even say killing, he said home invasions.
didn't say that criminals wouldn't be happy that they would be charged with less crimes if caught, I just said that it is bad to put a fake criminal in a video.
Just by reading that i can tell you missed the ENTIRE point dude.
so until you figure out what I am talking about, im not going to respond to you
Hey! I made a point first. You argued against my point. You can't accuse me of missing the point, I am the one who decided what the point was.
If criminals would want gun control putting a fake criminal in the video is a bad idea. If criminals don't want gun control putting a fake criminal in the video is a bad idea.
I was adding another reason why criminals wouldn't want gun control.
So then maybe he wasnt fake, me and you do not know, criminals usually have a huge ego, right? so maybe he was priding himself about what he does
i can see how putting a fake criminal advocating for gun control is weird, but if you were to ask any criminal/thug on the street are you for gun control/regulation i assure you they will say most definitely yes.
If i stick up a law abiding citizen in a world where guns are tightly controlled and there are no conceal carrry laws, then i know almost for a fact he will not pull a gun on me, and i will be the one with the gun.
Why do you think gun free zones are the biggest targets for shootings?
So then maybe he wasnt fake, me and you do not know, criminals usually have a huge ego, right? so maybe he was priding himself about what he does
Awesome, this didn't actually have anything to do with what I posted. Ego or not, I don't think they talk like that.
i can see how putting a fake criminal advocating for gun control is weird, but if you were to ask any criminal/thug on the street are you for gun control/regulation i assure you they will say most definitely yes.
Good, we agree a fake criminal is a bad idea.
If i stick up a law abiding citizen in a world where guns are tightly controlled and there are no conceal carrry laws, then i know almost for a fact he will not pull a gun on me, and i will be the one with the gun.
Why do you think gun free zones are the biggest targets for shootings?
Because there is noone there to stop them
I am against gun control. It is stupid tactics like this that are helping them take away my rights. If you lie to get your way it doesn't help your cause. You have a great video of people defending themselves because they were armed. We need to show that aspect of guns. But, in the middle of these good videos is a terribly fake sounding "criminal" that makes people think the rest of the videos are fake.
That doesn't mean they didn't have a fake person speaking.
I see now what you mean by propaganda, i thought you were talking about that being liberal propaganda, which is why i couldn't make sense of your arguments.
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.
The debate is phrased in absolutes (for control or against it); I was rolling with that. I recognize that there is not really an unregulated gun economy. At any rate, that was a miniscule part of the point I was making.
To be entirely fair, when one frames a debate in absolutes one might expect responses in absolutes. I've already conceded I should not have spoken in absolutes, but in truth it is far easier to slip into them when the entire framework is premised in them.
No. I honestly believe that legally purchased and licensed guns which are stolen or misplaced fuel the black market. Or did you think they showed up there by magic?
Regarding types of guns, I am not familiar with what that excludes but I see no reason why anyone needs to own any gun that is not a self-defense or hunting firearm.
No. I honestly believe that legally purchased and licensed guns which are stolen or misplaced fuel the black market. Or did you think they showed up there by magic?
Try again. Or better yet, don't, and stop wasting my time.
Reality check. Pay attention. Crooks don't require legal access to guns. They don't obey the law, so they'll get their hands on one, no matter how many laws there are. We need to make it a capital offense to use a gun in the commission of a crime. That would really put a damper on things.
If you are going to dredge up a 100 day old debate, the least you could do is read my response to the people who have already made your argument.
An unregulated gun economy means more guns are in circulation; the black market is full of legally purchased and licensed guns which were stolen or misplaced. Or did you think they showed up there by magic?
Making use of firearms in commission of a crime a capital offense is simply asinine. It is not only grossly disproportionate, but there is no reason to believe that deterrence is actually effective (and there is plenty of evidence that there are decidedly more effective alternatives).
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.
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.
I agree, indeed one can go to a shooting range or an open field an fire their weapon, but phrasing your last sentence in the manner of non-applicability is illogical. Are you saying that one won't shoot another person out of anger or shoot themselves in times of heavy depression?
Try this links out that show that guns serve as an outlet for stress. They can be harmful to others.
So saying " Let's stick to stuff that actually happens." is utterly foolish. These things ACTUALLY happen.
If I find an article in the news where someone was so happy after shooting at a gun range that they no longer needed medication would that make my argument correct?
I didn't say your argument was incorrect. The statement you concluded your previous argument with was foolish since these things happen. I rest my case unless you have more to add.
Your 3 articles do not indicate that the abundance of guns leads to guns being used in stressful times in the general sense. There is no reason to believe that an increase in guns will cause an increase in stressful violence. There is nothing to indicate that the stress wouldn't have lead to a knife death or beating death in the absence of a gun. All you know is that stress causes violence.
Please, fucking read. I purposefully said "MAY lead" as in it's probable. There are obviously more ways to get guns then there were back in the 1950's and such. I have given you the article to show you what MAY happen. In which case they already have. Yes, stress causes violence, I agree, but a gun is an outlet for anger.
It already happen twit. I just said that. Why the fuck did you leave that out? That was the purpose of the articles.
You can't justify your use of the word probable. Make sense now?
What the fuck? Did you read any of the articles? Shooting somebody is violent. They shot their victims out of ANGER. Clarify yourself.
It doesn't matter what tool was used to commit the violence. You have a link to violence only. You shouldn't make conclusions about guns because of those articles.
You can't justify your use of the word probable. Make sense now?
What does this have to do with guns being an outlet for anger.
It doesn't matter what tool was used to commit the violence. You have a link to violence only. You shouldn't make conclusions about guns because of those articles.
Yes it does. A gun is much quicker than using your hands or a knife. I have linked GUN VIOLENCE with anger. I have proved that guns serve as an outlet of anger. That's all that was required of me to do. Why are you trying to make new claims that have no ground? If I get mad and shoot someone should I just ignore that fact that I used a gun? No. I choose the gun. Why? That's what we wish to know. Why the gun? Is it quicker? More intimidating? What? It completely relevant to my argument. Your job is to disprove my notion that guns serve as an outlet of anger which you have yet to do. If you can't assess such a simple ass point then don't bother pestering me.
What does this have to do with guns being an outlet for anger.
You said something will probably happen. You don't know that.
I have linked GUN VIOLENCE with anger.
No, you linked someone who happened to use a gun.
I have proved that guns serve as an outlet of anger.
No, you have only proven anger in general.
That's all that was required of me to do.
Not if you want to extrapolate and take away other peoples rights.
Why are you trying to make new claims that have no ground?
Since when are you against making claims that have no ground? ;)
If I get mad and shoot someone should I just ignore that fact that I used a gun?
Absolutely. We don't do that ridiculous idea with anything else. Why is shooting someone magically a whole different type of violence? When someone is beaten do we care if it was punching violence or kicking violence?
I choose the gun. Why? That's what we wish to know. Why the gun? Is it quicker? More intimidating? What? It completely relevant to my argument.
It might be if you ever actually figured it out. Your argument doesn't even support your case. If someone just chose a gun because it was convenient, that means they want to commit violence, not gun violence.
Your job is to disprove my notion that guns serve as an outlet of anger which you have yet to do.
You haven't demonstrated that it was the gun that was the outlet. You have demonstrated anger was an outlet. You haven't proven your claim, it is still on you.
You said something will probably happen. You don't know that.
It already did. Why the fuck can you not realize that?
No, you linked someone who happened to use a gun.
Okay you're just a fucking twit. They were angry. They used a damn gun as an outlet of their anger. Why the fuck can you not realize that?
No, you have only proven anger in general.
No, I have given you evidence showing that guns can serve as an outlet for anger. They clearly did in the articles.
Not if you want to extrapolate and take away other peoples rights.
This isn't even what I'm talking about. My only claim is that guns can serve as an outlet for anger. That's it. They do. Case closed.
Since when are you against making claims that have no ground? ;)
I see. I have given you evidence of which you have yet to prove incorrect. I have given you a notion you keep trying to dodge and you are saying I have no ground? You're thay damn headstrong abiut debating that you become ignorant.
Why is shooting someone magically a whole different type of violence?Â
Because it a new type of violence? Same thing with bullying and cyber bullying. They are both still bullying. One is a sub-type. One is the general category.
Your argument doesn't even support your case. If someone just chose a gun because it was convenient, that means they want to commit violence, not gun violence.
Wtf? If I want to call people names on the internet am I cyber bullying or just bullying?
You haven't demonstrated that it was the gun that was the outlet. You have demonstrated anger was an outlet.
No. Anger was an outlet to what? The emotional response will trigger the physical response in this situation. You're a dumbass. If I become sad my outlet for my sadness may be writting down things in a journal. It I am happy my outlet for happiness may be partying or dancing or jumping or exercising. If I'm angry my outlet of anger may be to go boxing or hunting. Some people are bold enough to go grab a gun and shoot someone. That is an outlet. Anger is the stress and then you find your way to manage it.
My claim is this:
Guns may serve as an outlet for anger? How so? When someone is mad they may grab a gun and shoot someone. When has this ever occured? Plenty of times (this is the place for the article to show that some angry people will go grab a gun and shoot someone). What is your rebuttal?
It already did. Why the fuck can you not realize that?
Like I said before "You can't justify your use of the word probable. "
Having it happen a handful of times does not mean it is very likely to happen.
Okay you're just a fucking twit. They were angry. They used a damn gun as an outlet of their anger. Why the fuck can you not realize that?
They used violence.
No, I have given you evidence showing that guns can serve as an outlet for anger. They clearly did in the articles.
Why don't people just fire into the air? If guns were the actual outlet things would be better. People would drive to their gun range and fire until the anger went away. You have presented a story where someone needed to hurt someone because of their anger, not that they needed to shoot someone.
This isn't even what I'm talking about. My only claim is that guns can serve as an outlet for anger. That's it. They do. Case closed.
It was initially what you were talking about.
I see. I have given you evidence of which you have yet to prove incorrect. I have given you a notion you keep trying to dodge and you are saying I have no ground? You're thay damn headstrong abiut debating that you become ignorant.
I did prove incorrect.
Wtf? If I want to call people names on the internet am I cyber bullying or just bullying?
If you call people names on the internet are you trying to be mean or are you specifically trying to make the internet mean?
No. Anger was an outlet to what? The emotional response will trigger the physical response in this situation. You're a dumbass.
Sorry, I meant to use the word violence, not anger.
If I become sad my outlet for my sadness may be writting down things in a journal.
Do you do pen journaling or pencil. If you are right, that should matter.
Guns may serve as an outlet for anger? How so? When someone is mad they may grab a gun and shoot someone. When has this ever occured? Plenty of times (this is the place for the article to show that some angry people will go grab a gun and shoot someone). What is your rebuttal?
You have not demonstrated any reason why there should be special rules for different types of violence. Why is a gun death worse than a knife death? Why is a stab wound not as bad as a gun shot?
Like I said before "You can't justify your use of the word probable. "Having it happen a handful of times does not mean it is very likely to happen.
Okay? Does that mean it didn't happen? No. Does this prove that guns aren't an outlet of anger?
They used violence.
They used a gun. I haven't heart a criminal admit to killing someone with "violence". They will usually explain what they killed them with. This still doesn't prove that guns aren't an outlet for anger.
Why don't people just fire into the air?
I'd love to know.
If guns were the actual outlet things would be better. People would drive to their gun range and fire until the anger went away
So a hoodlum will actually spend time driving to a firing range when the people around him will mostly likely be telling him to "cap his ass"? No. Prove this claim of yours.
You have presented a story where someone needed to hurt someone because of their anger, not that they needed to shoot someone.
I have presented three stories where someones rage drove them to want to shoot someone. This doesn't disprove my notion.
I did prove incorrect.
Oh really? Go ahead and restate your counter argument please.
If you call people names on the internet are you trying to be mean or are you specifically trying to make the internet mean?
That doesn't even make sense. Answer my question.
Sorry, I meant to use the word violence, not anger.
That makes more sense, but clarity in violence is key to determining how the victim was killed or harmed. This is why there is a term called "gun violence".
Do you do pen journaling or pencil. If you are right, that should matter.
What? What does it matter? Did you even understand the allusion?
You have not demonstrated any reason why there should be special rules for different types of violence
What rules? I have classified types of violence. I have not compared different types of injury at all. I never said one was worse than the other.
Okay? Does that mean it didn't happen? No. Does this prove that guns aren't an outlet of anger?
It means you didn't prove anything.
They used a gun. I haven't heart a criminal admit to killing someone with "violence". They will usually explain what they killed them with. This still doesn't prove that guns aren't an outlet for anger.
A gun being used doesn't prove anything. You still have the burden of proof. We put people on trial for murder, not murder with gun, murder with knife, murder with fists.
I'd love to know.
Because guns aren't an outlet for anger.
So a hoodlum will actually spend time driving to a firing range when the people around him will mostly likely be telling him to "cap his ass"? No. Prove this claim of yours.
None of your examples had hoodlums in it. Hoodlums aren't doing it out of anger.
That doesn't even make sense. Answer my question.
I answered with a question. Cyber bullying is done to be a bully, not to make the internet a bad place. You act as if guns are used to make guns look bad.
That makes more sense, but clarity in violence is key to determining how the victim was killed or harmed. This is why there is a term called "gun violence".
The term gun violence is usually used in a very stupid way.
What? What does it matter? Did you even understand the allusion?
Why doesn't it matter what instrument you use to write your journal, but it matters what instrument you use to commit violence?
What rules? I have classified types of violence. I have not compared different types of injury at all. I never said one was worse than the other.
Incorrect. I have made my claim. I have presented evidence supporting it. You keep trying to bring the debate in another direction.
A gun being used doesn't prove anything. You still have the burden of proof. We put people on trial for murder, not murder with gun, murder with knife, murder with fists.
The burden of proof to prove that guns serve as an outlet for anger? The articles already did that. Angry people who used guns and killed somebody. That's it.
Because guns aren't an outlet for anger.
So what was the outlet of anger in the articles I presented?
None of your examples had hoodlums in it. Hoodlums aren't doing it out of anger.
You are avoiding the burden of proof. The "hoodlem" thing was only a mere allusion to hint at a greater social truth behind shootings. Prove you previous claim please otherwise it's dismissed as bullshit.
I answered with a question. Cyber bullying is done to be a bully, not to make the internet a bad place. You act as if guns are used to make guns look bad.
You don't understand shit that I post. The purpose was to show what gunviolence is still violence, but it has its own category like domestic violence. It's a label for a certain type of violence. I never said guns make anybody look bad. I only want to show you that guns are an outlet for anger. I have shown yow how they are. You just dismiss my case each time. I'm not continuing this unless you can actually assess evidence.
The term gun violence is usually used in a very stupid way.
Irrelevant and disagree.
Why doesn't it matter what instrument you use to write your journal, but it matters what instrument you use to commit violence?
Writing in my journal doesn't harm anyone. It's pointless to determine what tool I used. It doesn't prove or disprove my case. It's irrelevant matter.
Then why make the special case of banning guns?
How many time must I tell you that all I am saying is that guns serve as an outlet for anger? Can you please stick to that? Otherwise I'm out.
How many time must I tell you that all I am saying is that guns serve as an outlet for anger? Can you please stick to that? Otherwise I'm out.
You have shown that guns have been used when someone is angry a few times. Why should we draw conclusions about what the entire population is allowed to have based on that?
Yes. That all. Guns may be used as an outlet for anger. Everybody will not use a gun. You are completely correct. I'm sure even most people would never use a gun. You just have the few that will. They will use the gun as an outlet for anger. I'm not saying limit the population on anything. Thay is a separate debate. For this initial dispute all I wanted to show was that guns can be used as an outlet for anger. That's all I am saying. Have we drawn to a conclusion?
The problem is that you came on an extremely serious debate to apparently just tell us someone has used a gun in anger before. I was using the debate to discuss things on a larger level, like more than 4 people.
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.
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
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.
you said you know the guy talking in the red hoodie IS A BULLSHIT AND A LIE, because you know how thugs talk.
Thats stupid thugs dont have certain vocalizations, and if you are implying that a "thug" uses street lingo or whatever, then that is just the stupidest assumption you will ever make and you will get stuck up one day with that mentality because you will think this guy is not a threat, and he is.
why cant children own a gun? in a part 2 of that video there is a 14 year old girl, home alone. who saved herself from 3 teen male intruders
And also, if that guy was the NRA, dont you think they would PUSH FOR GUNS FOR EVERYONE?
You know seeing as how that is what they are all about and everything??
I agree with number 1 and 2.
"Number 3, fundamentalists can use different and more damaging means that a semi automatic gun, so by excluding these people you are only creating a mentality of us vs them
and 4, children who can pass a safety course should be able to have .22's and .17's but not for personal carry
How young are we talking about here? I mean a 12 year old should not own a gun the same way they shouldn't drink alcohol or drive a truck down the interstate lol.
As for the guy in the red Hoodie, I think that came out wrong, I am sure there are people like the guy in the video but the likelihood of a person that thinks like that would most likely be uneducated, ghetto or some rebel outlaw, you are right that could of been the real guy talking but the likelihood is very low, reason is the person interviewing that guy is required by law to report any person that speaks or threatens another with violence, the documentary recorder would been changed with harboring a fugitive same as a physiologist would be held accountable if you told your shink you are thinking about killing someone, doctor patient confidentiality goes out the window when it comes to the safely of others.
Very true fundamentalist would most likely use a different means of action but because of that is the reason they should not own a gun, that's like saying just because I like to kill people with my swords so owning a gun is A OK so long as I don't get my hands of any swords, and yes it is "US VS Them" the insane vs sane.
like 12 years old young, but i mean my cousin got his first gun at 10 he was the youngest guy to go through the course thingy.
But i mnean with all the games online today maybe kids shouldnt be able to own like a little .22 or a 28g shotgun, something small that they can go hunt with you know? Or if they are ever home alone and their parents explain to them why they have their own gun in the house is so that they can defend themselves while at home, it might be ok...
And i did not know that.
Then do you think documentaries like Drugs, Inc. do the cameramen report the kingpins and shit or are the people like undercover or what, i dont understand how you would be free from showing all of your drugs on national television.... idk.
The insane vs the sane? cmon now everyones a little crazy
It's only required by law if it's bottley harming to self and others, drugs do not apply.
Example if your best friend tells you he raped and killed his girlfriend and you say nothing you will be considered just as guilty as your friend because it was a rape and murder.
And true I am crazy lol but I don't think that I am mentally unstable, there is a big difference, crazy is Jim Carry, nuts or mentally unstable is Charly Manson.
I am in relative agreement with you, except for the standards you set with respect to restricting ownership. About all I agree with you on is children. Here is why:
"Mental Instability"
Half of a given population will experience mental illness in their lifetime, and in any given year roughly a quarter of the population is diagnosable with mental illness. One in seventeen live with a chronic mental health condition. Most of these people are not violent, and if they are it is not necessarily because of mental illness. In fact, those with mental illness are actually more likely to be victims of violence than those without mental illness, and are less likely to be perpetrators than victims. There is no research that I am aware of that indicates an actual causal link between mental illness and violence; this is an unfounded stereotype that negatively stigmatizes those living with mental illness.
To deny equal rights to people who have done nothing wrong, who are more likely to be victims, and who we have no actual reason to suspect will become violent is entirely unethical. This is especially true if you extend the restriction to any and all mental instability.
Anger issues, alcoholics and drug addicts
Anger issues I am more inclined to agree with, although assessing and screening for that is questionable in terms of efficacy. What constitutes an "anger issue"? Is it established by psych eval, criminal history, etc?
Excluding alcoholics and drug addicts I take more issue with, as again these populations are not to my knowledge actually demonstrably proven to be more violent (and, again, may actually be more likely to be victims of violence given concurrent patterns of poverty or homelessness).
Fundamentalist Cults or Religion
Who defines what constitutes fundamentalist? Do the beliefs really matter, or do we care if they are identified as gang or terrorist organization that actually supports and encourages violence? This standard seems exceptionally dangerous, as a punishment of freedom of speech, belief, and association.
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?
I have absolutely no idea what state you live in, but in no state that I have lived in are you required to get either a physical or mental exam for a drivers license.
At any rate, psych exams are pretty easy to lie out of and don't really screen very well in my opinion. Accurate diagnosis are rare even with people who have been working extensively for an extended period of time with a trained professional. Other objections aside, this just isn't practical.
Another thing is make it law that every gun in American needs to have a GPS tracking chip [...]
These would definitely just get removed once they hit the black market. Also, a bit creepy a la big brother if you ask me.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You are right on all your points except for one my friend.
I am familiar with your laws. It is barbaric.
Is it barbaric to defend yourself? how did this lady know they didnt have a gun or were unarmed? They didnt, she was fearing for HER LIFE.
Nice sympathy skills you got. Maybe people shouldnt just waltz through someones front door that they don't know, and maybe they won't get shot? just a thought.
This doesnt justify the public being permitted to hand out the death sentence to each other.
LOL. ts only if someone comes onto your property unannounced that you have the right to defend YOUR PROPERTY that they are INVADING
The basis of the law of self defence should be that you can use reasonable force equal to the threat your under. The guy probably would have just come in the house and stolen something. He did not deserve to die.
When you enter a fortress unannounced you are probably going to get shot on sight.
What is the difference from entering a privately owned business organization and them gunning you down on sight, LEGALLY of course. and a privately owned home who shoots you because they feel that their life is in danger?
The difference is that the privately owned business should have to detain you.
The basis of the law of self defence should be that you can use reasonable force equal to the threat your under.
Also, that is stupid logic.
What if the guy had a bat and i had a gun?
Would i have to say oh shit sorry let me go get my bat from the basement instead of just shooting you (doesnt have to be a kill shot can be a maim shot, the lady had a shotgun, obviously its gonna kill the guy from so close, and yes, she could have maimed him and called the police.
Well its the logic of the British legal system on which your law is based. Of course you could use deadly force if you believed you were going to be killed by the guy with the bat.
Lol, human rights? what about common sense? common sense tells me dont enter that house because you might get killed or put in the hospital.
If someone entered YOUR house, Atrag, unarmed and meant you no physical harm at all whatsoever, then there goes self defense, because he is not there to harm you. He is just there to steal all your valuables. But you cant stop him because you aren't being threatened. So you might as well just stand there and strike up a nice convo while he puts all your things onto a moving van.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cohesive financial security programs, narrowing income and class disparity, addressing poverty, improving education and access to education, addressing relationship and family violence, treatment and support facilities for addictions, appropriate physical and mental health care, infrastructure, etc. I could keep going, but I do think that gun violence is largely a consequence of other problems rather than a distinct problem in and of itself.
My opinion is that gun regulation is a secondary issue, but that does not mean we neglect it entirely. My stance is less nuanced on this issue than on others given my relative weighting of its importance, but I do still have an opinion on it.
The argument against absolute deregulation seems apparent to me (correct me if I am wrong). With respect to the particular regulations I would support - training, licensing, and non-defensive/non-hunting firearm prohibitions - I consider the benefits of restriction to outweigh the harms. We require training and licensing for the possession and/or use of other potentially dangerous or deadly objects (e.g. cars and driving, chemical handling, etc.), and that we should want to know who possesses a firearm and be relatively confident that they possess the knowledge of how to wield it responsibly makes sense to me. Regarding non-defensive/non-hunting firearms, I see no compelling reason why anyone needs guns outside of those uses and the risks of allowing ownership outweigh the obscure potential benefits (albeit that the risks are, as already mentioned, a secondary problem to the root causes that generate them to begin with).
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).
The psych screening they would look for is what Delta Force look for in military snipers, and they are 2 things to determine if you qualify or not, but only 1 of them applies to civilian issues.
When Delta Force selects their snipers, they look for two things to avoid. One is called the "Texas Tower Syndrome" referencing charles whitmans massacre of 14 people.
This characteristic manifests itself when a person starts shooting and can't stop because it feels so good, such a sense of power, that he can't turn it off once his target is eliminated and will continue to shoot anyone in sight.
The second thing they avoid is an emotional attachment to the target. But that is not important when we are talking about a citizen defending themselves.
So we should look for the TTS in people, and this can be screenede easily by going to the firing range and seeing who empties their clip the fastest.
Is there any evidence that this is actually an accurate and effective predictor for behavior in screening? Even if it is, I suspect that the process for identifying TTS is more complex than simply booting out whoever empties their clip fastest. To accurately screen on a psych basis you would need someone trained in psychology, and limited resources make it likely that in implementation the screening conductor would be improperly prepared to make their assessment.
Further, while eagerness and enjoyment of discharging a firearm may be one potential warning sign it is not uniformly the case that those exhibiting it would abuse their firearm right. It is also true that those predisposed to abuse that right may exhibit no warning signs whatsoever, either because the signs are missed or because they are not evidenced at the time of acquisition. Again, you will deny equal rights to individuals on what seems to me a vague and inaccurate basis.
May I presume since you failed to respond to my other points you either agree or don't care enough to dispute them?
It is not even that I think the story is untrue, I just doubt that it would be effective as a screening measure (particularly in the context of gun regulation).
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.
I mostly agree with you. However, the death penalty is not a deterrent. Many crimes are committed by repeat offenders, including murder. If we get rid of murderers, the number of murders will drop. It's simple math.
I never said the death penalty is a deterrent. Most repeat offenders are created by the prison industrial complex which exacerbates the individual and social conditions which lead to crime and violence. If we address our broken justice system and attend to the social issues that actually matter, the number of murders will actually drop.
It is simple logic, but apparently most people find that difficult.
That presumes that most murders are premeditated, which they are not. Also, way to persistently ignore my actual point. I consider it ceded that social issues contribute to murder and that we should focus there instead. I am done wasting my time here; anticipate no further reply.
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.
How much of a bias do you have toward your belief? You couldn't even address the actual arguments. The regulations that have been tried have failed. Saying there are possible regulations is the stupidest reason to have regulations. Your stance was that since regulations are possible, we should add them.
Incorrect assumption over what I initially stated. Go reread what I posted. I said I would like to see more regulations due to possible attacks on schools, malls, theaters, etc. I address my own argument. It's you who hasn't directly assessed mine.
I am the only one who has addressed any of the arguments. We have the regulations you want and there are still shootings. You have no idea how to fix the problem.
Oh, you get to say unnamed regulations will magically solve the problem without stating which regulations or how they will stop anything, and my argument is bad? If you give me a million bucks I will pay 100 people $100 not to shoot anyone. Surely someone would have shot someone and I will have prevented it. Boom, gun violence reduced. And, I get some profit.
No. You aren't understanding. There may be regulations we have yet to think of that can limit gun violence. That's it. That's all I'm saying. Nothing else. If your method truly works then congratulations. You found a method. Now brainstorm and come up with more.
Heavier punishments for crimes involving firearms.
Why should a mass shooter care when half the time he's going to off himself any way?
Increase the backround checks and intended usage of a firearm if purchased.
background checks are fair. asking what the intended usage is would be be unnecessarily invasive, unless you are going to strap every gun buyer into a lie detector... Then it would become considerably less worthless, but insanely invasive.
Limited availability to the public.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
Restrictions on certain weapons.
Agreed, but all valid restrictions are already there. A VA Tech shooting with a belt-fed automatic machine gun would result in hundreds of deaths, and there is no practical civilian use for such a weapon. They are incredibly hard to get legally and rightfully so.
There are mostly likely many more possibile ways to add regulations.
91% of guns used in crimes are illegally owned in the first place. Criminals don't give a damn about your regulations. They will get weapons and they will use them the way they want. My legally owned firearms have nothing to do with anyone getting killed.
Yes, primarily from those who obtained the gun through legal means. The guns is usually jot in their ownership. Criminals have a mind. A 0.01% reduction is still progress. How do these criminals obtain these guns anyway? That's something to research so that outlet may be destroyed. What I didn't respond to I agreed. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
If you could press a magic button and make all guns disappear... yeah... maybe I would be for it. But you can't. If you banned guns, law abiding citizens would lose theirs first. Do criminals sometimes get their guns from the legal market through theft or other means? Yeah sure. If they didn't have that source they could always bring them into the country the same way illegal drugs come in. In the end, criminals have guns and law abiding citizens don't.
This is why we investigate the source of the illegal arms. Where do criminals obtain them? That is the key to solving part of the process. You are also using a slipper slope fallacy assuming A will logically lead to Z without any other hard evidence. I would suggest sticking to smaller claims.
We already do investigate the source of illegal arms... especially since they are responsible for 90% of the gun crimes. So what is your problem?
We are incapable of both having a free society and keeping every illegal substance and item out of the country. It is a fact of life. It is my opinion that we should give all law abiding citizens to tools to defend themselves in any situation. Criminals should have fear of facing a citizen with a concealed weapon every time they try to commit a violent crime.
You may comfortable with trying to call 911 and waiting for someone else to show up with a gun to help you. I chose to embrace our history in the US that idealizes self sufficiency and independence. If someone breaks into my home, even with a 1% chance of intent to harm my family, the only call I will be making is for someone to come pick up his dead corpse.
I'm not completely against guns. I would just like to find a method to reduce the frequency of attacks on suseptible places. That's all. I agree with what you are saying.
I think your focus then should be mental health availability and procedures. Adam Lanza should not have been out in public. Someone should have certainly told his mother it is a bad idea to go shooting with him and she shouldn't keep guns around him. The new age response for dangerous people is to give them medication and let them go out into the world hoping they take it and hoping it is effective.
But most importantly Adam Lanza should have had a father in the house in his teenage years. I don't know if anyone has researched what percentage of shooters grow up without their father, or in otherwise broken homes. But I would be willing to bet it is at least twice as prevalent as everyone else.
Want to stop mass shootings? Hop on board the conservative train to try to reinforce marriage and the family.
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.
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.
