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.
The best way to solve problems that Democrats shout about is the finger. There's no middle ground between freedom and Communists. You just defeat them. That's it. We don't negotiate our inalienable rights with Communists, tyrants, terrorists, crooks, progressives, ever.
The best way to solve problems that Democrats shout about is the finger. There's no middle ground between freedom and Communists. You just defeat them.
Shut up with your idiotic neo-Nazi bullshit you retard. Democrats are capitalists. They have nothing to do with Communism. And you didn't defeat Communism in the first place. Sure, the Soviet system collapsed: followed 16 years later by your own system.
It's a lie to claim the Democrat Party isn't heavily supported by socialists.
You didn't claim the "Democrat Party is heavily supported by socialists". You literally claimed the Democrats were Communists and that you needed to "defeat them". You are a militant neo-Nazi RETARD.
By Democrats, he's referencing leftist "democratic" socialists. Not all Democrats are commies, but there are many.
you didn't defeat Communism
You're right, the U.S. didn't defeat communism. The USSR collapsed in on itself because of terrible leadership. That doesn't mean that communism works, if that's what you're saying.
It was Democratic Presidents like Kennedy and Johnson who worked tirelessly to defeat the Communists during the Cold War. The Democrat Party is a liberal capitalist party and if you do not understand that it is because you are either retarded, dishonest or further right than Hitler. Capiche?
You're right, the U.S. didn't defeat communism.
I know I am right. Clearly however, you do not know that, despite what you claim, because you are trying to argue with me.
The USSR collapsed in on itself because of terrible leadership.
As did the US in 2007.
That doesn't mean that communism works
Communism worked for 70 years, during which time the Soviets invented satellite technology and were the first to put a man in space.
Communism worked for 70 years, during which time the Soviets invented satellite technology and were the first to put a man in space.
And murdered their own people using Stalinist tactics and surveillance on anyone who stepped out of line or got in the way. So that is "Communism working"? Stupid story bro. Mega stupid story. Stupid story on steroids.
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon among others wanted to end the war in Vietnam, not continue it. They wanted to stop fighting communism by extent. Also, of course they hated commies. Everyone did, and a lot of people still do.
liberal capitalist party
The Democratic party is a political party with views on the left side of the political spectrum. Communism and socialism are both ideals on the left side of the political spectrum. The Democratic party is, for the most part, what is pushing for universal healthcare. Also, if you look at the 2016 presidential election, you'll find that Bernie Sanders (noted Democratic Socialist) moved to the Democratic party with all of his Bernie bros because he knew that running as an independent wouldn't do him any favors.
further right than Hitler
Wouldn't Hitler be considered alt-Right? Also, Hitler was a part of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Socialism is a less extreme version of communism, which is a leftist ideology.
As did the US in 2007
The United States has never collapsed in its history. We've had economic depressions, but we've pulled through every time. Unless of course, you want to count restructuring the country by taking out the Articles of Confederation and replacing it with the Constitution. That, I can get behind.
worked for 70 years
It worked exactly how it was supposed to work if how it was meant to work was to make everyone poor and create massive food shortages.
invented satellite technology
With the help of German scientists. Also, communism is not the reason for the USSR getting the first man into space.
Batman
I'd rather you answer my question than you be a smartass, but do whatever works for you I suppose.
Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon among others wanted to end the war in Vietnam, not continue it.
They were precisely the people who made the decision to continue the War in Vietnam you revisionist retard.
Johnson announces more troops to Vietnam - Jul 28, 1965 - HISTORY
President Lyndon B. Johnson announces that he has ordered an increase in U.S. military forces in Vietnam, from the present 75,000 to 125,000. Johnson also said that he would order additional increases if necessary. He pointed out that to fill the increase in military manpower needs, the monthly draft calls would be raised from 17,000 to 35,000.
President Kennedy orders more troops to South Vietnam - May 11, 1961
President Kennedy approves sending 400 Special Forces troops and 100 other U.S. military advisers to South Vietnam. On the same day, he orders the start of clandestine warfare against North Vietnam to be conducted by South Vietnamese agents under the direction and training of the CIA and U.S. Special Forces troops. Kennedy’s orders also called for South Vietnamese forces to infiltrate Laos to locate and disrupt communist bases and supply lines there.
I'm not sitting here all day challenging your self-contradictory, false, idiotic revisionist history. If you want to debate then I expect a minimum recognition of basic historical facts. Until then, you are on my personal list of imbeciles with which to avoid conversation.
The United States has never collapsed in its history.
Don't be so naive. Your economy flatlined. It dragged down several major European economies with it. The only thing that revived it was socialism. The major banks were given huge (i.e. trillions of dollars) sums of taxpayer money by the government, without the people's consent. Hence, in the most ironic of all outcomes, Russia was saved by capitalism and the US was saved by socialism.
It worked exactly how it was supposed to work if how it was meant to work was to make everyone poor and create massive food shortages.
You can stfu about food shortages too you bizarre hypocrite.
41 million people struggle with hunger in the United States, including 13 million children and 5 million seniors
Remind me again how the Americans got to the Moon. Whose rocket technology did they use?
Also, communism is not the reason for the USSR getting the first man into space.
I completely agree. However, I have a strong suspicion that you will take the opposing view if someone questions whether capitalism has been responsible for any of America's achievements. You strike me as a typical American hypocrite, tbh. Judging other nations for faults which your own is equally, if not more guilty of.
I'm not suggesting that the Americans got into space all by themselves, either. I was pointing out that the Russians didn't get into space first all by themselves as the other guy said.
questions whether capitalism has been responsible for any of America's achievements
I doubt very seriously that capitalism has helped America achieve anything that it has. I'm not saying that America got to the Moon first because of capitalism. I'm disproving the other guy's claim that communism helped the Russians get the first man into space.
judging other nations for faults which your own is equally, if not more guilty of
Yes, I judge other nations for their shortcomings just as I judge my own country of its shortcomings. If you can show me one country better than the United States, go ahead. I doubt you'll find one.
I'm not suggesting that the Americans got into space all by themselves, either.
You tried to belittle Soviet achievements on the grounds that they benefited from German rocket technology, without making clear that most American achievements from the same era happened for the same reason. That makes you a hypocrite.
I was pointing out that the Russians didn't get into space first all by themselves
But yes they did. The Nazis didn't get into space, so obviously what the Russians did was better. Furthermore, the Americans didn't get into space (before the Russians) either, despite having the same rocket technology. You can distort and twist reason as much as you like, but the fact remains that the Russians beat you into space.
I'm disproving the other guy's claim that communism helped the Russians get the first man into space.
But he didn't make that claim in the first place. I think perhaps you might have a reading comprehension issue.
If you can show me one country better than the United States, go ahead. I doubt you'll find one.
Lol. I knew you were just another brainwashed American robot. The word "better" literally does not mean anything in English unless you specify what you think you are better at. Claiming America is simply "better" is a fucking nonsense statement with no actual meaning.
If we look at the global standard of living index (i.e. the closest thing to "better" I can personally think of), then America is actually nowhere to be found. It doesn't even place in the top twelve:-
I didn't belive I needed to make that clear, as I assumed both people knew that already. So, no, I'm not a hypocrite.
yes they did
Not without the help of German scientists. And the Americans also didn't get into space all by themselves. I said that.
beat you into space
But America won the Space Race, for one, and also, I never tried to assert that they didn't. I simply pointed out that communism made no contributions.
comprehension issue
He used the fact that Russians made it to space first as a point for why communism works.
mean anything
Not better at, better than. Words can be used in different contexts. America is the best country compared to other countries for the most part. There are some things that other countries do better, but it's never a large list.
global standard of living index
First off, the article you linked goes by the level of social progress made by each country. That doesn't make it invalid, but I wouldn't say that social progress means a good standard of living. I feel like that would be more associated with quality of living, but I'm not an expert in the field. Second, Finland and Denmark are also countries that have some of the highest personal income tax rates in the world.
Finland - 51.60
Denmark - 55.80
For context, Denmark's average personal income is $28,950 and Finland's is $29,374. So, as an average citizen of either of those countries, you're giving the government half of what you're earning for publically-funded healthcare among other things. I wouldn't say those two countries are better places to live than the United States, personally.
What an idiotic proposal. I mean totally brain dead. Who in their right mind would declare: I need to buy a gun to murder my next door neighbor"! Idiot.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?
Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
That is true but so should education. By the way accidental death is not homicide, it is not murder. While forced assisted suicide, and intentional death are still homicide. Lethal force is not, but may be. this is constitutional understanding of the use of the word murder.
Ok, you got me. I'm angry at Trump - not Trump voters. Truth is, I live in the heart of Trumplandia.. There's just too many of 'em to stomp on. Besides that, I don't wear my politics on my sleeve. I don't have any Obama stickers on my car. I mind my business.
But, let me come upon a fellow wearing Nazi regalia, and I'll punch him till I can't punch him anymore..
Why though? I don't get it. You share so much in common. You're both malignant liars with no regard for truth or other people's feelings. Surely you should support each other?
Truth is, I live in the heart of Trumplandia
Nah. Truth is, you wouldn't know truth if it abseiled down the side of your lying face with a climbing rope.
I mind my business.
Nah. You're just a worm who is too scared to speak up for himself in real life.
But, let me come upon a fellow wearing Nazi regalia, and I'll punch him till I can't punch him anymore..
Tough words, Mr Internet. Problem is you're exactly like a Nazi, so I don't know why you don't get along. The Nazis essentially invented smear attacks and false rhetoric, so you should in theory be great friends.
Does it even register with you on any level that you are not a Semite?
Hello science denier and hater:
No. Why would it.. I have DNA. That you don't BELIEVE my DNA makes you a science denier.. That you BELIEVE my DNA test is FAKE because the testing company is run by Jews, makes you a hater..
You are an Ashkenazi Jew, not a Hebrew. That means your DNA is that of a polish european who's ancestors converted to a religion. Therefor you are retarded, because you associate yourself with Israel when you're from poland, you associate yourself with a religion when you're an atheist, and you call yourself "God's chsen people" when you're not an Israelite.
Yes, I SEE your flapping gums.. But, I have DNA.. It doesn't say any of what you say. It says I'm 97% Ashkenazi Jewish. Who should I believe?? A Jew hater, or a scientist???
You are an Ashkenazi Jew, not a Hebrew. That means your DNA is that of a polish european who's ancestors converted to a religion. Therefor you are retarded, because you associate yourself with Israel when you're from poland, you associate yourself with a religion when you're an atheist, and you call yourself "God's chsen people" when you're not an Israelite.
Thanks dude. I'm getting sick of correcting his fallacies and being met with a wall of smear attacks in response. Your post sums it up perfectly. It's not worth the effort of disproving somebody who point blank refuses to accept that he's wrong. Let's just downvote him in future.
I have DNA too, retard. That doesn't make me Jewish. Your DNA does not take the form of words. Somebody interprets it to mean something, you fucking thick twat.
Nazis died out in the 1940s, and the people who were formerly Nazis are in their 90s and don't hold the same ideals they did back then. You're looking for the term "neo-Nazi".
Neo - schmeo.. Wear Nazi regalia in my presence, and I'll be on you. I'm a Jewish warrior.. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than going out whacking on a Nazi..
So, you haven't seen my DNA test.. I dunno HOW you missed it. But, I'll show you again.. What's that??? You don't WANNA see it??? Why?? Cause, you'll say, it's FAKE. Cause Jews are liars and cheaters..
Are you a religious Jew or an ethnic Jew? Either way, him disagreeing with you doesn't mean that he denies science or hates Jews. Also, how is he a science denier?
Sure.. It's this very test that the science deniers DENY.. They say it's FAKE, cause the testing lab is owned by Jews.. You seem like a reasonable fellow.. Do YOU think it's fake??
Here it comes.. I LOVE the music.. It's sooo ethnic.
Sure.. It's this very test that the science deniers DENY.
Stop mislabelling the opinion of an Israeli ancestry website as "science", you obsessively delusional tosser. You have been linked to countless peer-reviewed articles which explicate why and how the interpretation of your results has been biased. You have ignored all of them.
DNA ancestry tests branded 'meaningless'
Commercial DNA tests that claim to tell people whether they are related to Richard III or descended from the Vikings are no more than "genetic astrology", scientists have warned.
I don't think it's fake. I don't see why a testing lab would fake a DNA test at all, honestly.
Hello the:
Of course, they wouldn't.. But, if you HATE the result of my DNA test, and your science doesn't hold up, you'd attack the Jewish company who did it.. I think it's pretty desperate, don't you?? Look.. The MORE they attack my DNA test, the more they confirm its validity..
By the way, as a brand new Christian, are you afraid of a Jewish race??
Either way, him disagreeing with you doesn't mean that he denies science or hates Jews. Also, how is he a science denier?
He's been disproved by the science, which is why he always falls back to the repetition of baseless smear attacks. He can't face the fact that his claims were disproved. It's pathetic.
Commercial DNA tests that claim to tell people whether they are related to Richard III or descended from the Vikings are no more than "genetic astrology", scientists have warned.
I don't hate Jews, I just said it would be a good idea to take a couple of other tests to solidify your Jew-ness. If you don't, you're just proving their point to them.
I didn't suggest YOU hate Jews. I'm just saying that if the test I took didn't please the haters, then 20 tests won't please the haters.
Look... I'm NOT trying to convince them.. That ain't never gonna happen.. Hate is not reasonable.. Therefore, you can't use reason to combat it.. You just have to POINT it out, and KEEP pointing it out.. And, that's what I do.
No one that you think hates Jews actually hates Jews. They just hate the fact that you keep on bringing up the fact that you're a self-proclaimed Jewish warrior.
I keep bringing up the fact that I'm a Jewish warrior in RESPONSE to the hate I'm encountering..
I don't LIKE talking about all the time.. But, I WILL defend it wherever I encounter it.. Look.. I could be answering a thread on soap, and some hater will jump in and start accusing me of being a LIAR about my Jewishness..
So, I defend my Jewishness on a thread about soap... That goes on, and on, and on. Yes, I KNOW it pisses the haters off when I declare myself a Jewish warrior.. So??
Besides, WHY would declaring myself a Jewish warrior piss ANYONE off?? Metaphorically, they should be Jewish warriors TOO.
No, you're a regular person if not a tiny bit insane. I wouldn't be surprised if you went to jail for 13 assault charges. You have a right to your opinion, and so do neo-Nazis.
The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements, which may borrow elements from Nazi doctrine, including ultranationalism, anti-communism, racism, ableism, xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, antisemitism, up to initiating the Fourth Reich.
See that? Borrowing elements from Nazi doctrine. Neo-Nazism seeks to revive aspects of Nazi Germany, not everything about it.
Guns are not evil, they actually perform a very necessary function in civilian life which is to allow weaker humans to defend themselves against stronger humans. I know of no other tool that can perform this task as effectively as guns do.
Dermot it is strange that i own guns and i have not killed one person with my weapons and the intent of me buying weapons was not to kill anyone but i can hunt and protect my property and my family. You are right a gun is not a tool but a weapon. Intent of committing murder is in the mind of a criminal not the average gun owner.
Spoken like a true American, yous are the only people who call a gun a “tool “ such is your desperation and embarrassment at the staggering gun death /accident numbers yearly .....
I wonder what you definition of a gun is ? Let me help ......
gun
ɡʌn/Submit
noun
1.
a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise.
You also do not know what applies to Attack and Defense.
Like I said before, Unarmed soldiers are known as "Defenseless". If you killed unarmed soldiers this is against international law. But if they are armed, then they are able to defend themselves.
Did I explain attack and defense well enough for you to understand?
Using American speak yes , but the rest of us call guns weapons
I'm also tired of people stating "Gun Deaths" as if these exist on their own.
Who said they exist on their own ? They don’t happen in civilized countries mostly can you guess why ? Because we don’t have guns
you should never compare "Gun Deaths" in one country to another country.
I know because your country is more violent than most
You should compare "Homicides". Who cares what item was used to kill the other person, the bad thing is that a person was murdered.
Well Americans don’t care if you had no guns you would have no gun deaths , why are you not mentioning the 70,000 accidents a year and school shootings?
It is your opinion that we have an embarrassing amount of gun death.
Most non Americans agree with me , it’s your opinion there’s no problem
If you eliminate suicides and gangs we have an incredibly small amount.
Let's say 70% of these involved a gun. So we have 70,000 Gun Homicides.
Then we waive a magic wand and all guns are gone from Society. And we look at next year.
We have 100,000 Homicides again.
But 0% involve a gun because they no longer exist! How Wonderful we stopped gun violence.
Never-mind that we actually made 0 progress. We can use words in ways that make us sound smart. "We stopped all gun violence in 1 year by eliminating all guns!"
Guns are not the problem.
If people are committing suicide and you don't like it. Don't take away the gun, find out why they are committing suicide and resolve that.
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
If you have constant gang wars, yes that is a problem that needs to be solved, but I can easily pull up thousands of videos of people being hacked to death with Machetes in places where guns are hard to get.
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
If you have school shootings, taking away the gun does not stop bombings, or stabbings, or help the actual issue that we have people that want to commit such acts.
Then we waive a magic wand and all guns are gone from Society. And we look at next year.
We have 100,000 Homicides again.
So your "point" is make-believe statistics which you have literally invented yourself to "prove" a hypothetical point? Wtf?
But 0% involve a gun because they no longer exist! How Wonderful we stopped gun violence.
Denying the relationship between guns and violence is ridiculous. When you put tools designed to kill into the hands of everyday people then what do you expect they are going to do with them, you IDIOT? Do you think they are going to use them to make toast with?
Would you buy a car and not drive it? Would you buy a swimming pool and not swim in it?
Guns are not the problem.
Clearly they are the problem and you are just delusional as a result of living in a culture which has BRAINWASHED you.
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
But it DOES resolve the issue, because if you make it DIFFICULT for people to commit suicide, then less people are going to commit suicide. When you ENCOURAGE it by selling them the means to end their lives instantly and relatively painlessly, then guess what's going to happen moron?
Clearly it has escaped your rather limited attention, but the population of the world has exploded in recent centuries. In 1800 there were less than a billion people. Today there are over seven billion.
Bronto, wtf does the size of the Persian army in the "Battle of Thermopylae" have to do with anything? Obviously a lot more people have died since the invention of guns, because since then we have had two world wars, which alone killed close to 100 million people.
Nothing you say is true. Everything you say is false. You're a retarded neo-Nazi imbecile who is still stewing about the three years he wasted cheating the points system on CD only to have his account banned for systematic abuse.
Bronto, wtf does the size of the Persian army in the "Battle of Thermopylae" have to do with anything?
It shows that battles in the past consisted of more ground forces by far, and battles in ancient times were to the death.
Obviously a lot more people have died since the invention of guns, because since then we have had two world wars, which alone killed close to 100 million people
First, you've given no evidence of this claim.
Second, even if it were true, it would be because populations are greater. If the percentage of the population for sword kills was higher then than the percentage of kills for guns compared to populations now, your argument is dead.
Third. Even if you could prove more deaths now, that would not disprove that without guns people still fight wars and still kill each other.
Fourth. Most people don't fight in wars. Exclude two wars from 70+ years ago, and it was more dangerous for those not in the middle of wars pre-gun. Your position doesn't disarm the military. It disarms the citizenry. Disarming the citizenry wouldn't have changed the World War death counts. And vigilante justice was much higher pre-gun, which actually affects the non-war citizenry.
It shows that battles in the past consisted of more ground forces by far
No, it doesn't. Cherry-picking one particular battle off a Wikipedia page says absolutely nothing about any other battles. You're literally stupid.
First, you've given no evidence of this claim.
Completely false. I linked the Wikipedia pages so you can check for yourself. Everything you say -- literally EVERYTHING -- is a lie.
Second, even if it were true, it would be because populations are greater.
So your first point was to demand evidence I've already given you, and your second point was to make a random statement of fact supported by absolutely no evidence?? OMG you're such a stupid hypocrite. It's absolutely endearing. Lol!!
Third. Even if you could prove more deaths now
I have proven it. You need to use the past tense.
that would not disprove that without guns people still fight wars and still kill each other.
Then I suppose it's fortunate nobody except you has ever made that claim. All you seem to know how to do is LIE about what other people have said, isn't it, Nazi boy?
Fourth
Fourth, based on the first three, this one is going to be stupid too. Not even going to bother reading it.
But there were much less homicides because there were much less people. Instead of just admitting you said something stupid, you try to distort language around it. Homicide rates mean absolutely nothing to the topic under discussion you idiotic prick.
I’ve already provided sources.
No, you have not, you idiotic liar. A source is something you link to verify a claim. Your sources did not verify your claim, which makes them blind link drops.
But there were much less homicides because there were much less people. Instead of just admitting you said something stupid, you try to distort language around it. Homicide rates mean absolutely nothing to the topic under discussion you idiotic prick.
Less total homicides vs less percentage of homicides per the total population. If I put you in a room with 20 psychopaths, the room isn't safer because there are a total of more psychopaths outside the room. The percentage of psychopaths in the room is 100%. God you're a fucking no common sense dumbass.
Less total homicides vs less percentage of homicides per the total population
That's right. Well done for finally getting something right. Unfortunately however, neither yourself nor Amarel have been honest enough to mention that the increased historical presence and jurisdiction of law were responsible for declining homicide rates.
If I put you in a room with 20 psychopaths, the room isn't safer because there are a total of more psychopaths outside the room.
And you are back into retard mode again. I have no idea what this even means. I told you to go back to school an hour ago. You honestly should have listened to me.
The percentage of psychopaths in the room is 100%. God you're a fucking no common sense dumbass.
Wtf? The claim was that more people have died since the invention of guns. Nothing you are saying has ANY RELATIONSHIP to that claim. The mental gymnastics performed by yourself and Amarel in order to avoid admitting you are completely wrong is RETARDED.
"If you put tools designed to kill into the hands of everyday people then what do you expect them to do?"
Well lets see.
Over 1/3rd of all Americans own guns. So that's over 105 Million people.
Even if we include suicides, accidental deaths, gang killings, and police shootings that is let's round it up to 40,000 gun deaths a year.
1% of people who own a gun killing someone would mean 1 million people are killed a year.
0.1% would be 100,000.
It's actually less than 0.04% of people who own a gun use it.
And of those 0.04% 0.03% are suicides.
So 0.01% of people use guns against another person. (Not on themselves)
Oh and of that 0.01% most of those are Gang Violence.
So it's about 0.002% of people who are not in a gang and own a gun will use it to shoot another person. And these aren't even all murders. This includes accidental, police shootings, Justified shootings, etc.
This also means if you aren't killed by a gang, or commit suicide, your chance of being shot by a gun in the United States is about 0.00067%.
Just to compare, the chance of getting killed by a Knife in the us is somewhere around 0.00050%. Matter of fact, if you put other murder weapons together, (including knives, blunt objects, fists/hands/strangulation, etc) then if you are murdered and not a member of a gang, you are more likely NOT to die by a gun in the U.S., but by other means.
Let's say 70% of these involved a gun. So we have 70,000 Gun Homicides.
Then we waive a magic wand and all guns are gone from Society. And we look at next year.
We have 100,000 Homicides again.
But 0% involve a gun because they no longer exist! How Wonderful we stopped gun violence.
Never-mind that we actually made 0 progress. We can use words in ways that make us sound smart. "We stopped all gun violence in 1 year by eliminating all guns!"
Guns are not the problem.
Guns are a problem especially for Americans , so here’s the deal guns are the problem otherwise they wouldn’t call them gun deaths /accidents ....... Tricky stuff but hey you may work it out yet
If people are committing suicide and you don't like it. Don't take away the gun, find out why they are committing suicide and resolve that.
Ah right you do like it ? Find out why but let them have their guns in the meantime ?
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
If you have constant gang wars, yes that is a problem that needs to be solved, but I can easily pull up thousands of videos of people being hacked to death with Machetes in places where guns are hard to get.
Really , thousands of machete deaths in the U S yearly wow !
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
Well maybe get rid of machetes as well ?
If you have school shootings, taking away the gun does not stop bombings, or stabbings, or help the actual issue that we have people that want to commit such acts.
Taking the gun away doesn't resolve the issue.
That was my point.
Thank you for confirming you Americans would kill and maim each other’s with just about anything
I can't believe you can literally read and respond to logic and just ignore it.
But you don’t do logic , you make stuff up because of your embarrassment at the appalling gun stats for the U S , now you claim there are thousands of machete deaths in the U S yearly .....
I said I can pull up thousands of gang violence murders that are done with Machetes.
The fact that people kill each other with machetes is a reason NOT TO GIVE THEM GUNS, not a reason TO give them guns. Omfg. Am I really explaining this to you?
If I was your English teacher you'd get a very low score for reading comprehension.
Imagine you are a single mother at home with your kids. If there are no guns, any male that enters your house wins any confrontation with you about 99% of the time.
But if you have a gun you are equal. Even if he has a gun too, you are equal. If you have a gun and he has a Machete you have the power to defend yourself and your children.
Removing guns from people who want to use it to defend themselves, is leaving them at the mercy of any criminal that decides to target them. It is a sad reality but there are bad people out there, and it is up to you to be responsible and defend yourself, your property, and your family.
Sure the police will get there after the crime is over, if your lucky they will get there DURING the crime being committed. But police are reactionary. They only come after the crime has started, and it takes time for them to arrive. The Police do not defend you, it is their job to put people in jail AFTER they commit a crime.
They are all over the place. I mean that's 5 seconds of googling, not to mention a few websites report that a machete attack happens about every 90 seconds in the UK.
You said thousands didn’t you ? So let’s see your contention is that if Americans hadn’t guns the population would buy machetes instead and murder and maim each other with them instead , did you ever think of moving buddy ?
There are about 30-40k deaths caused by guns per year.
About 65% of those are suicides.
About 80% of what is left are Gang-Related.
So if you don't kill yourself and you are not the member of a gang then your chance of being killed by a fire-arm in the United States is about 0.0006%. (That includes Accidental Deaths, Justified Police Killings, Justified Defensive Killings, etc)
So if you aren't a criminal or involved in an accident, your chances are even lower.
But let's all pretend America has some big issue with guns.
Our real issue is Mental Health (suicides) and Gangs.
Bullshit buddy so you admit without guns Americans would get tooled up with machetes en masses but it’s not a problem is it ?
Read some real facts from American Health org
Nearly 1,300 children in the United States die from gun-related injuries every year
That makes guns the third leading cause of death for U.S. children, according to a 2017 study in Pediatrics, surpassing the number of childhood deaths from congenital abnormalities, heart disease, flu or pneumonia, respiratory disease, and cerebrovascular causes.
“The shooter playing with a gun was the most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger and older children,” the authors wrote in their study. In addition to the number of children killed, nearly 6,000 are treated for guns
About 50 women a month are shot to death by intimate partners in the U.S.
Everytown for Gun Safety reports this horrific stat, compiled from FBI reports from 2009 to 2013. According to a 2017 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, more than half—54%—of women killed by their partners in the United States are killed with guns.
Gun homicides kill about 13,000 people every year in the United States
That makes America’s gun homicide rate 25 times higher than the average of other global economic leaders, according to a 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine that compared 2010 data from 23 populous, high-income countries. For 15- to 24-year-olds, the U.S. gun homicide rate was 49 times higher than in other countries.
Another finding from that study puts things into even greater perspective: While the U.S. accounts for 46% of the population of these countries, it has 82% of the gun deaths overall—and more than 90% of women, children, and young adult gun deaths. Before this research, the authors note in their paper, the most recent study on this topic was more than a decade old.
Gun deaths and injuries jump 70% in the weeks following (some) nearby gun shows.
More than 4,000 gun shows are held annually in the United States, and gun shows account for 4% to 9% of annual firearm sales. But a 2017 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that when gun shows are held in Nevada, gun-related deaths and injuries increase by 70% in nearby California communities for at least the next two weeks.
54% of U.S. gun owners admit that they do not store their guns safely
“Safely,” in this case, is defined as “in a locked gun safe, cabinet, or case, locked into a gun rack, or stored with a trigger lock or other lock.” Those are the findings of a February study in the American Journal of Public Health based on survey responses from 1,444 U.S. gun owners—believed to be the first nationally representative sample of its kind in 15 years.
Gun owners with children under 18 living at home tended to be more careful with their guns, but 45% still reported not using safe storage techniques. "Household gun ownership can increase the risk of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings in the home,” said lead study author Cassandra Crifasi, PhD, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, in a press release, “but practicing safe storage for all gun
99.85% of Americans will know a victim of gun violence
Nearly all of us will know someone in our social network who is injured by a gun in our lifetimes, according to a 2016 study in Preventive Medicine, and 84.3% will know someone who dies.
Black people in the U.S. have the highest likelihood of knowing someone who dies from gun violence, at 95.5%. White people have an 85.3% chance, followed by Hispanic people (62.4%) and other racial groups (46.7%).
Of the 30 leading causes of death in the United States, gun violence is the least researched
A 2017 research letter published in JAMA examined federal funding and publication frequency for research into the 30 leading causes of death in the U.S. from 2004 to 2015. In relation to the number of people killed, gun violence was the least researched cause of death and second-to-last (after falls) in the amount of allocated funding. In fact, gun violence received only 1.6% of the funding it should have, compared to other causes of death with similar mortality rates.
That came as no surprise to advocates for more gun research. Two years earlier, House Democrats released a statement decrying the fact that “we dedicate $240 million a year on traffic safety research, more than $233 million a year on food safety, and $331 million a year on the effects of tobacco, but almost nothing on firearms that kill 33,000 Americans annually.”
they actually perform a very necessary function in civilian life which is to allow weaker humans to defend themselves against stronger humans.
You're an idiot. Guns don't "defend". They spit toxic chunks of lead into other humans. If you think that's what "defence" is then there is only one explanation: you're retarded.
You're an idiot. Guns don't "defend". They spit toxic chunks of lead into other humans. If you think that's what "defence" is then there is only one explanation: you're retarded.
I can't believe they haven't invented a device to disable firearms. You could wear it on your wrist like an Assassin's hidden blade and if someone puts a gun to your balls you can just activate the device.
I can't believe they haven't invented a device to disable firearms. You could wear it on your wrist like an Assassin's hidden blade and if someone puts a gun to your balls you can just activate the device.
I don't know if or how that would be possible, but if it was, then it would definitely be a great example of defence.
Yes they do. If a murderer tries to kill me, I defend myself with a gun. I don't have to kill them, maybe I can shoot them in the leg or arm and disable them. That is defending yourself by using a gun.
I forgot there is a way to eliminate violent crime.
Oh wait there isn't, and also 1% of humans are psychopaths.
We don't live in a fantasy land, and police are reactionary. You don't buy a gun because you want to use it. You buy a gun hoping you never have the need to use it. Knowing that some day you may be glad you had one.
Dermot it is designed to kill and puts wild game in the freezer and food on the table for a family so you got it right. Damn good job and perfectly done.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?
Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. You final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
Oh do shut up you idiotic brute , a gun is designed to kill you fucking half - wit a car is designed to transport people , goods etc car deaths are accidental gun deaths are mostly not .
The hilarious thing is you claim to be a “Christian “ and idiots like you actually think if Jesus roamed the earth today he would carry a gun ...... Ignore
As always, control fanatics like you do not care about saving lives, you just want to take our guns.
I know terrible isn’t it “fanatics “ like me think 30,000 to 40,000 gun deaths a year are appalling add on 70,000 odd gun accidents , schools shootings etc, etc, and Americans think it’s something to be proud off , sure idiots like you go to church and console yourself that “ Hey Jesus would have carried a gun “ ....... How are you so fucked in the head ?
LOL, you lack the honesty to even talk about drunk driving and the many many more deaths of children and adults. So you obviously drink and don't want to be bothered with control fanatics trying to put more restrictions and back ground checks on your alcohol consumption.
*In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
That's awesome. Nobody died from nuclear weapons during that period, therefore nuclear weapons are safe and should be legalised immediately.
Take your retarded logical fallacies back to the Westboro Baptist Church you militant wingnut retard.
Lets, see, MANY MANY MANY MORE CHILDREN ARE KILLED BY DRUNK DRIVERS THEN SOME LUNATIC MASS KILLERS, BUT WHY TALK ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND THE CAUSE OF THEIR DEATH. YOU DRINK SO HANDS OFF YOUR VICE!
LETS JUST TALK ABOUT GUNS BECAUSE WE ARE RADICAL CONTROL FANATICS WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS AND WANT BIG GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE!
It seems, Joe, that you're living in a fantasy world. Guns aren't the only thing used in murders, for one, so I doubt that it would drop as significantly as you think. If it dropped at all, that is. Second, how are license agreement violation charges going to dissuade people from killing each other?
It seems, Joe, that you're living in a fantasy world.
Oh, the pure, unadulterated irony. Over thirty thousand completely preventable deaths per year, but HE'S living in the fantasy world?? As retards go, you're a large one.
And how would you prevent those thirty thousand gun deaths? By the way, most of those are suicides by people who were able to legally obtain the firearm they used.
30,000 deaths is tiny compared to 350,000,000 people. It's not even a blip on the radar. And with most of those deaths being suicides, and most of the rest being gang on gang, there's almost zero chance I get shot today.
As for your snarky, toxic tone, how were you planning on defending yourself against all these Nazis & fascists you claim exist? Bean flip?
30,000 deaths is tiny compared to 350,000,000 people.
By that logic it was fine to kill 6 million Jews because there were 80 million people in Germany. I mean, you literally have the brain of a twelve year old child. You can't compare dead people to alive people and then argue it proves the dead people should be dead. That's unbelievably stupid. A fairer comparison would be between the 30,000 completely unnecessary, completely preventable gun deaths per year, and the 1,000 people killed by Hurricane Katrina, which constituted a national emergency.
No, it isn't about if someone is less or more dead.
60% of gun deaths in the U.S. are Suicides.
Of the remaining 40%, about 80% of those are gang-related.
Which leaves 5% of gun deaths in the united states are homicides, accidental deaths, self defense, police shootings, mass shootings, etc.
We have an incredibly low amount of gun deaths per capita. We have enough guns to arm every man woman and child in a country of over 300 million people, and more people die from kitchen appliances every year than these remaining 5% of gun deaths.
Being against a given Amendment does not mean you are against the Constitution. Nor is it anti-Constitution to be in favor of amending it. The most recent Amendment was in 1992. Those involved successfully changed the Constitution. Where they anti-American? What about those who were against the 18th Amendment which outlawed drinking? Anti-American? No.
I worded myself wrong. I mean that by being against the 2nd Amendment, you are against the human right to self-preservation granted by the Second Amendment.
If a kid really wants to kill his classmates, he's going to do it regardless of restrictions. And, when that kid obtains a gun, legally or otherwise, and shoots up his school, who's going to take him down if no citizen can legally own a gun? I hope you see what I'm getting at.
If a kid really wants to kill his classmates, he's going to do it regardless of restrictions.
This is retard logic. You are trying to use a fact (i.e. some people will kill regardless) to validate the opposite of a fact (i.e. we should therefore make it ten times easier for them by arming them with guns). Your statement is, at very best, completely fucking irrelevant.
And, when that kid obtains a gun, legally or otherwise, and shoots up his school, who's going to take him down if no citizen can legally own a gun?
Ah, the old "we need more guns to save us from all the guns" circular reasoning. How refreshing. Jesus Christ you're so stupid. In Britain we do not need to give out automatic weapons to our school children to "protect" them from maniacs with automatic weapons. Do you know why? BECAUSE WE DON'T GIVE OUT AUTOMATIC WEAPONS TO MANIACS IN THE FIRST PLACE!! You are literally so much of a retard that you want to arm everybody, right down to little old ladies and pre-pubescent school children, instead of just doing the simple thing and taking the gun away from the shooter. Nobody needs guns to defend themselves in a society which isn't selling guns, because the bad guys don't have guns.
You and your entire gun culture are fucking retarded. You've had your brain melted with fallacious NRA bullshit your entire life. It's a wonder you know up from down, if indeed you even do.
No one wants kids to get shot, and no one is arming depressed 15-year-olds while knowing what they'd do with the weapons.
irrelevant
No, not if you're saying that repealing the 2nd Amendment would result in fewer gun murders. Gangs will always be able to obtain firearms one way or another, so those numbers wouldn't fluctuate just by repealing the 2nd Amendment.
from all the guns
Who's going to take the gun from the maniac shooting up his school? A security guard with pepper spray and a walkie-talkie?
In Britain
Yes, your gun laws are extremely strict. I understand. Now, would you like to comment on the rampant knife crime and acid attacks?
school children
I never said you should give guns to kids. You said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
automatic weapons
You're not able to legally own an automatic weapon without a gun license that is very* difficult to obtain.
little old ladies and pre-pubescent school children
I never said any of that. Where did you get this?
taking the gun away
And how would you take away a gun from a "gun-wielding maniac"?
which isn't selling guns
Legality would only harm the ability of good Samaritans to protect themselves from gang members and other criminals who own guns illegally.
bad guys don't have guns
Unless they buy guns illegally. That's a bit of a spanner in the works.
fucking retarded
Good word choice in a debate in which I'm attempting to be civil.
fallacious NRA bullshit
I don't believe I've read anything from the NRA in my life.
if indeed you even do
Good to know that when you've run out of arguments, you resort to insulting your opponent.
Agreements are worthless when people will disobey them regardless. You act like everyone wants to kill someone and we need to put into place laws preventing them from doing so. Fact of the matter is that normal, everyday people don't want to murder their wife and kids.
In order to fully comprehend the threat of gun violence in the United States in 2018, here are five shocking facts.
Three of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern American history have occurred in the last eight months.
It is more dangerous to be a school student than a deployed service member in 2018. You are twice as likely to be shot dead at school, than in active service.
An American woman is shot dead by her partner every 16 hours.
One in three children live in a home with a gun.
In an average day, 20 American children are shot.
With statistics like that, it’s only a matter of time until we’re covering the next horrific – yet entirely inevitable – mass shooting.
Wonder how many children will be shot today in the U S ?
Well don’t then , I’m sick and tired of constantly posting up links to every stat when it comes to the gun debate as you’re just told by Americans “ your source is biased “ ......
I just posted up another reply to your fellow gun nut with reference to stats