CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gun Control
Should guns be completely banned or not? There are alot f reasons why guns should only have restrictions put on them instead of being completely banned, along with lots of negative affects of bnning them. There are also multiple other ways to have a good compromise in the eyes of pro and con gun ban people.
That is a mute point. It is very idiotic for you to think of such bull$hit. There are so many gun in the US already banning them would only effect law obeying people. Mass murders use the black market to get their guns idiot.
Removing guns from house hold is the worse thing you can do. Let me tell you exactly why as a Information Security Engineer (info sec / IT sec ).
1) Law abiding citizen will obey the law. Regardless if you want guns or not, criminals have ways to find one and kill you.
2) Guns equalize the situation where cops will take 5 minutes minimum to bring some body bags to your house. You either want to use that body bag or you don't.
3) Guns in America was not meant for hunting as a primary purpose. It is your second amendment right / duty to have one as our founding fathers have seen how government abuses its power to fellow citizens. Government should serve people, not the other way around.
4) People kill people , not tools kill people. You say all you want that these equipment make it easier for bad people to do harmful things. However, would you also want to get rid of chances for law abiding citizen to defense themselves. If you say the cops can do it then you are delusional. They don't have the jurisdiction to even search you or run to your house to do things on your property. Go find out about the law.
5) Countries that have extremely strict gun laws don't really work well either. Japan still has high crime rates, they just hide their news. People still kill each other in many different ways.
6) I do agree with fully automatic weapons can be ridiculous since you cannot hit anything accurately and should just spread the harm. However, having a regular semi-automatic firearms should not be excluded in any state or the country. I suggest you go learn about firearms really well before you say stuff.
7) Law enforcement do agree that black rifles do not create crimes. Crimes were made by people who can't afford to have anything. They purchased cheap crappy firearms in black market anyway.
All can all. I know that the bad guys will go to your house not mine for sure. Why? Because I am ready to defend myself and my family for the right of life and freedom of speech. Do you like Commie countries? You can go to China and see how that feels.
Educate your children about firearms and proper manner in society is the key. Firearms are not the problem. US government themselves deals more than any other agencies in the world. Go figure!
1) It will be harder for criminals to find and they could get caught... If a criminal finds it people can be in danger because they could die before the police come... they could maybe transport guns? but i think that could be caught and MORE bad people will be put in jail because the person who transported it is not to give guns. WITH and WITHOUT guns the chance of getting killed is not much... If you are in open i doubt you would have a gun... If you are at home where there's burglary they don't often use guns... in the UK we don't see burglaries with guns often but i did hear quite a while ago someone on a gun rampage in Legoland...
2) Police can be very quick they are just somewhere around the area... Usually the police arrive before someone gets killed.
3) If you get a gun license you could easily go outside and kill a bunch of people.... very very easily
4) People can kill people if they do not have tools. We cant control people! we can just arrest them but then people keep doing it!
5) The ways to kill people are limited to crime rates get lower... and Japan is a big place I think they might need guns or something... it kind of depends a bit.
6) Learn about firearms really well then get a gun!
7) Crimes leads to more Crimes... We need to reduce the chances of crimes Compare USA with UK and see the diffrence... UK is safer.
I think to get a gun you must know a lot about them and firearms and those sorts of things... I think military should be only to use it maybe some very experienced if there is some which i think there is..
Yes, all America needs is ANOTHER preventable black market. I mean, the war on drugs was so effective. Prohibition was sweet. The War on crime in the 20s really calmed shit down. I think we are going to have to face the fact that cracking down on distribution in the regulated white market is not the answer. A lot of people bring up countries like Sweden or England who have strict gun control, but they also have great education, mental health options, and other social systems that make it so that there is always a better option then guns.
I don't know if your brain was on vacation, but I'll spell it out. Guns are not the cause. They are the effect. Actually the American gun problems only spring up in times of strict rises in control. During the time of illegal land seizures by the government we had road gangs pop up, not because there where guns, but because they had no choice. During the war on drugs more gangs armed themselves and our gun violence rates spiked above the Prohibition era. Why? Because we forced a large grey market into the ultra competitive black market. Speaking of prohibition See War on drugs. You'll get the idea.
.
So our regular gun violence follows a predictable pattern. Make a black market, gun violence goes up. As for the more unstable elements of society...well if your going to gun down a school full of children and kill yourself having a legal gun is not a big deal. And they are not hard to get despite what popular fiction might say.
I truly believe that the United States Government should legalize guns because guns dont kill people, people kill people also wild boars kill people. The US should invest in mental health instead of taking away guns. The mental health in the US is nowhere close the the mental health abilities as other countries.
Banning guns is a awful idea! If more people carried guns we would all be safer because rapest and what not would not want to take a risk. Also you could shoot animals that attack you! Guns make us much safer in conclution!
Unfortunately neither have you, and I haven't seen anyone else provide anything either. I did a search for crime in England and the only thing I saw was that the crime rate is higher. Where is your information?
Supporting Evidence:
England Crime
(www.telegraph.co.uk)
How is less people dying less safe? Do you equate a stolen wallet with murder?
Less guns did not lead to more crime in England anyway, it lead to less crime in England, and way less murder.
Similarly better gun control has in the past and will again, lead to less crime in the U.S. and way less murder.
That's how it works every single time.
You've made a false comparison. It's like if they took guns away from Ethiopian warlords and then there were less murders in Ethiopia but there were still more murders in Ethiopia than in the U.S. so you say "see! we need warlords with more guns in the U.S. because after they took the guns away from warlords in Ethiopia they still had more murders than the U.S.!!!" While of course completely ignoring the point that murders actually decreased there.
Which would be typical of an NRA newsletter, but try to be a little smarter than that yourself.
So, you are clearly against guns for absolutely no reason. I am glad your true colors have shown. You are for banning guns no matter what. I asked you if it was less safe to ban guns and you still think it is a good idea. England's murder rate was not really affected by gun control. England has always had a lower murder rate than USA. They took away guns in England and the murder rate didn't change, but it is still less than USA, so you are the one who says look, getting rid of guns works.
What about this Harvard study?
Supporting Evidence:
Gun Study
(www.law.harvard.edu)
So, you are clearly against guns for absolutely no reason.
I stated the reasons. I'm for gun control because smart gun control is proven to decrease gun deaths. That you need to pretend I've not said this half a dozen times does say something about either your lack of intelligence or your cultish worship of guns. Not sure which is worse.
You are for banning guns no matter what.
I'm for gun control, but the debate does not allow that distinction.
I asked you if it was less safe to ban guns and you still think it is a good idea.
This sentence makes no sense. If you mean that you incorrectly stated that banning guns makes people in general less safe, and that I replied you are incorrect and that it makes people safer and so is a good idea, then you are correct.
England's murder rate was not really affected by gun control.
Wrong
England has always had a lower murder rate than USA.
Due to better gun control laws, which is my point.
They took away guns in England and the murder rate didn't change
Yes it did.
but it is still less than USA
True. Thanks to better gun control.
so you are the one who says look, getting rid of guns works.
That is what I and statistics say, yes.
What about this Harvard study?
That's not a Harvard study, and the information in it has been debunked in every case. It does not take into account other issues which lead to crime and treats all gun ownership the same while utterly ignoring all regulation on those guns. Since my point is and has always been regulation, the skewed stats therein do not apply to any of the arguments I've made.
Every statistic I have ever seen has supported my view or has been a lie, that is where I draw my conclusion from. I have read that England has always had a lower murder rate than USA even before they enacted their gun control. I also read that England's overall murder rate was not affected by gun control. I couldn't find the information that you use to support your "reasoning."
You grip to you belief that gun control works, and you're some sort of great person. But, I hold on to my belief that gun control doesn't work and I am some sort of jerk.
Every statistic I have ever seen has supported my view or has been a lie
It's unfortunate you only believe statistics published by NRA supporters instead of non-partisan entities then.
You grip to you belief that gun control works, and you're some sort of great person. But, I hold on to my belief that gun control doesn't work and I am some sort of jerk.
Well, we know for a fact gun control works, and at the very least it is worth a try since there is no evidence it would not work.
You though would rather more kids and innocent people die, you think owning a gun you will never need is worth more then their lives,
My statistics are better than yours, yours are stupid :P (I looked at stuff from BBC and the guardian, those damn American news agencies)
I have seen gun control not work (Chicago, Washington D.C.), but my view is different from yours so I must be wrong I guess.
There is evidence for my side. You don't care at all if people die. You only care because it is preventable. If we bring up anything else that kills people you find a way to trivialize those numbers.
Sweet, you have nothing to say, I won the argument. It's too bad because I started to look up murder rates and it turns out England's murder rate only goes up while the US murder rate keeps going down. Good thing you didn't continue because your lack of facts was going to be your end.
The reason for increased gun violence in Chicago and DC is the increase in poverty. It is a short trip to Indiana or Maryland to buy any gun one wants at a gun show, usually with no background check.
Compared to times of similar poverty in cities when guns were better controlled, gun crimes are down.
You can compare this to cities like Honolulu where there are no nearby cities where one can buy a gun. Gun crime consistently goes down when there is not access to guns.
The point of controlling guns, what recent debate about, is not prohibition.
It is accepted that people for whatever reason want guns.
The debate is about the number of bullets and the power of the gun. When you limit this less people die. That is a fact. A school shooting by some nut will result in less deaths when they have less bullets and less powerful guns. This is a fact.
So there are two elements at play.
1. A citizen with an automatic weapon designed for war zones is useless for hunting, self-defense, or anything accept playing around on a range.
2. These guns are used in mass shootings resulting in more deaths than would occur if these guns designed specifically for war were not available.
The logical conclusion is to limit these guns and the size of the magazines. You still get a gun if it makes you feel better, so no need to cry, it's just limiting the size and power in order to save lives.
All of these arguments against it are incredibly selfish and frankly tragic. It is a bunch of people (by a bunch I mean like 30%, 70% including even conservatives are for better gun control) falling for an NRA campaign whose only, only, only goal is to sell more guns. This at the cost of human life.
Your policy causes MORE people to die by any means. The facts are people die when guns are BANNED. Why do you want people to die? Reducing gun death is WORTHLESS if more people die overall. Hawaii and England are islands. You can't ban guns in the USA with Mexico next door, or with all of the gun manufacturing going on in the country. You keep forming opinions from facts not in evidence. It has been shown that MORE guns means less death and yet you find a way to think the exact opposite. I am sorry that I don't get my facts from the CCP like you do, but that doesn't mean I am wrong.
Gun bans never in the history of the world have lead to more gun deaths. In every case where guns limited less people die from guns when comparisons are made on an equal socio-economic spectrum. You are dealing with an incorrect set of facts, or pulling shit out of your ass since you offer nothing to back up these claims.
I didn't say gun deaths would go up. This is why I am right and you are wrong. MURDER rates go UP when guns are banned. MORE people DIE if guns are banned. You choose the side where MORE people DIE. But, your whole argument is that you are saving lives. Why does it matter what was used to kill the person? Is a person more dead when killed with a gun than when killed with a knife?
If 23 people have to die for 30 people to live, isn't that a good trade off?
If the socioeconomic spectrum is more important for determining that people will be more likely to die, how come we aren't focusing the effort to fix that problem? Taking away guns does not help the socioeconomic problems we have.
Murder rates go down when guns are better regulated. What on earth do you believe would make murder rates go up? The idea is ridiculous. That crazy idea you and other gun nuts have, that they are somehow safer with a gun, is false. Statistically, if you have a gun, you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself than defend yourself. Guns are not protection, it's the fantasy of protection. So keep your silly fantasy if you want, whatever, but they should still be better regulated.
You are the one with the fantasy. I totally understand your belief system. But, it is a complex system. You have completely ignored the fact that guns provide protection without having to be fired. All you do is wave your arms around and say that a world without guns can't possibly be more dangerous because of some gut feeling you have that isn't based on anything that has actually happened in the real world.
I looked up the murder rates for America and for England. America's murder keeps going down and it is the lowest since the 1960's. England's murder rate tends to be going up even though they keep passing more and more restrictive gun control. How do you explain that trend if gun regulations actually reduce murder?
England's laws concerning guns have been virtually the same for decades. Recent rising crime, as stated, has to do with austerity measures which are making more poor people even poorer. These stats have nothing to do with gun control. The relevant numbers here are only when compared directly to the U.S. taking into account factors which increase crime.
As for the U.S., murder rates have been rising drastically in the last three years. In our case our economy has improved over this time, the opposite of England and Europe's economy.
So the murder rate rising cannot correlate with economic depression in our case. See why you cannot make a direct comparison?
In the last three years gun ownership has increased though, a lot. Other things which have increased include paranoia, distrust of government, and fear for future, disconnected from an improving economy. This mentality leads to more people who should not have guns seeking guns, and they then use those guns to kill people. This is a prime reason for the increased murder rate over the last three years.
Better gun control makes it easier to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people. Limiting ammunition and the power of the gun means that when someone who is crazy does get a gun, they are able to kill less people. So you are saving lives two ways.
Meanwhile, the sorts of criminals who are dissuaded from carrying out a criminal act due to the fear of guns are no more or less dissuaded whether the person has a hand gun with 6 bullets or an AK47. It is the same.
So limiting gun power and ammunition has no negative impact as far as protection. The only impact is on the crazies who then are able to kill fewer people less often.
What about England's new gun regulation added in 1997, is that decades of the same gun regulation? In 1890 - 1892 England had 3 gun deaths, 1 per year and guns were not banned. They started gun regulation early 20th century and gun deaths have not been eliminated. Every once in a while England adds more laws and murder goes UP immediately, then goes down but back to levels even or higher than where they were. England has a century of steady growth when it comes to murder rate, so it has nothing to do with their economy.
America's murder rate has been going down, your CCP statistics are wrong. I hope you see the irony in the fact that people like you are the reason why gun sales have skyrocketed. Obama has been the #1 gun salesman for about 5 years now ;)
Crazy people killing people is a RARE event. Creating laws based on these mass shootings is insane because clinically crazy people are more likely to be victims. Assault rifles have killed less children in the last 5 years than hammers and clubs, how would banning them fix anything?
There is no guarantee that hand guns won't be targeted by you anti gun nuts next, why should anyone give up their rights when you admit that assault rifles deter crime?
What about England's new gun regulation added in 1997, is that decades of the same gun regulation? In 1890 - 1892 England had 3 gun deaths, 1 per year and guns were not banned. They started gun regulation early 20th century and gun deaths have not been eliminated. Every once in a while England adds more laws and murder goes UP immediately, then goes down but back to levels even or higher than where they were. England has a century of steady growth when it comes to murder rate, so it has nothing to do with their economy.
Those changes were not major, guns have been strictly regulated for decades. Notice your numbers stop at 1992 (assuming 1892 is a typo). The new regulation in 1997 were enforced as a result of rising murders up to that point, after 1982. You'll notice a decrease I'll bet after 1997. Your numbers are taking a snapshot of rates in the 80s and comparing them to the current condition, meanwhile in between there were rises and dips. The point is recent rises have to do with poverty.
You are trying, it seems, to make a connection in between gun regulation and an increase in gun deaths. Let's think about this though. By this logic you are saying that defending against gun deaths by pulling out your six shooter Dirty Harry like is something that happens enough to be statistically relevant. This of course is a silly notion. We know that the cases of defending against murder via gun is rare because those driven to the point of murder are not thinking about consequence in that moment.
It's a none issue. So let's focus on whether there are relevant numbers the other direction.
America's murder rate has been going down, your CCP statistics are wrong.
This I have to dispute. Numbers in the last three years are up. Those stats are pretty clear.
I hope you see the irony in the fact that people like you are the reason why gun sales have skyrocketed. Obama has been the #1 gun salesman for about 5 years now ;)
No, Fox and other far right wing sources are the #1 salesmen. They have created a strawman and have tricked people into fearing their rights are being taken. This has turned into something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, true. Hate groups and militant groups are at an all time high thanks to this strawman, these unhinged people account for much of the gun violence, and the increase in gun violence has lead to something like 70% of people, democrat and republican, now supporting better regulation of guns. The irony is the fear spread of something which did not exist has convinced many that the thing which did not exist should, better regulation of guns.
Crazy people killing people is a RARE event.
True, but it happens yes?
Creating laws based on these mass shootings is insane because clinically crazy people are more likely to be victims.
Victims in many ways, I agree. But not victims of random shootings I'd say. So do you believe that in answer to their victimization we should supply crazy people with guns? You know, to protect themselves?
There is no guarantee that hand guns won't be targeted by you anti gun nuts next, why should anyone give up their rights when you admit that assault rifles deter crime?
Regulation of guns is no "nuttier" than regulation of cars, or planes, or tanks, or nuclear missiles, or anything else in the world. It seems to me the only "nutty" position is when one believes there should be no regulation, or when they begin to fear slippery slopes so much they refuse to even address common sense solutions to a clear problem.
1892 was not a typo. I was talking 19th century before England gun regulation. It is a fact that there were less gun deaths by number before England enacted regulation compared to now, but I don't know what the actual rate was. I was simply asking why gun deaths haven't been eliminated if 1 person was killed with a gun per year BEFORE gun regulations went into place.
What about the far left "news" sources. Do you know how many times I have heard how many people have been murdered since the Newtown shooting? How come no one cared about these people before the shooting? Why don't they talk about whether that number is high, medium, or low? Why don't they talk about whether this is going up or going down? The left puts a spin on the news too. For 4 years all of the gun nuts were telling me Obama is coming after our guns, and I thought they were crazy. But, what do you know, in his first term in office he ends up calling for gun regulation, and all of the gun nuts were justified.
I don't have access to the CCP database like you, can you provide your murder rate numbers for the last 3 years for America?
I like how anti gun people say we need to protect everyone from the rare gun events by banning guns, but when someone suggests banning the more frequent hammer and club attacks, they can justify those deaths.
If, like you have said, assault rifles provide me the same protection as handguns, why should I give them up?
You don't have common sense. You tell me that gun violence and crime in England can't be helped because of economics and living situation, but in America it is solely because of guns being legal.
Look what happend to USA this could happen again... innocent people getting killed.
Maybe some parts... if you are like in military you need guns and if your a normal oridnary person you should not have guns... you could easily kill anyone.
You can have self defence with the POLICE... and other things unless you are actually really really trained and use it carefully (unlike Oscar Potorius who shoots randomly even though I think he murdered his girlfriend)
Maybe they should do more training.... people in Military and are experinced can use it outside of Military? Just dont use them at all and everyone is safe! if someone has a gun when they are not suppose to just call someone and get it sorted!
I know enough about guns to know how to use them. Never point at someone or joke around with it and put the safty on when your not using it. There are already so many guns out there banning them would only effect people who obey the law. Mass murders would still happen.
Ban guns a a aweful idea. Haha! I am useing the wrong side! My mistake! Weird! HAHA! Okay anyways people are safer with guns because it protects us from rapest and people like prodgee. Well, thats all people!
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.
