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.
I keep hearing the Left tell us how nations who ban guns have a smaller % of gun deaths.
So lets take your excuses of why we should lose our gun rights, and apply them to other instruments of death.
In nations where they do not allow alcohol, there are FAR FEWER drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths. Does that matter to you when it comes to your opposition to banning alcohol?
If we mandated a maximum of 35 miles per hour speed limit on all roads, we would save thousands of lives each year! Do you want to mandate such speed limits to "save lives"? Nahhhh
If we made laws that said you must ride a bike to work if you live within ten miles, would you support that law to "save lives"?
Of all the things we could do to "save lives", why is it that Guns are the only things that gun control fanatics worry about?
You are hypocrites and care nothing about "saving lives". You are supporters of Big Government controlling the people, and taking our guns makes that easier to do.
Fact: Where there are more guns there is more gun-related violence, how you can make a correlation to immigration is beyond me.
Because most people in gangs aren't white. And most gun homicides by far are gang on gang. It's like magic. Or are you suggesting that it's just blacks...
You say: "Countries who take less immigrants and have less gang activity have less gun deaths."
Obviously, where there is more gang activity, there is more gun violence. I was referring to the other part of that claim, that countries with more immigrants have more gun deaths. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support that, and your insistence on dodging to rebuke a point I didn't make shows how clueless you are.
Sure there is. It's simple deductive reasoning. Europe, America, Canada, Australia, etc were white countries until they began letting in lots of foreigners. Now the gangs are full of minorities. Thus, immigration has caused the gangs. And gangs are resonsible for most gun deaths.
The focus of that post was the immigration point, but once again, can you refrain from repeating the same point when I've rebuked it now 3 times. The primary reason that alcohol exists is to give people pleasure. The primary reason that guns exist is to kill people, and they're extremely effective at doing so. That's the difference.
Three times I've made myself perfectly clear. Three times you've shown that you're either too stupid to understand or in denial. If you don't have the ability to comprehend a clearly made point, I'm afraid that's not my fucking problem.
Alcohol related deaths, in the way you're describing, are about the direct actions of a person on themselves. Gun related deaths give someone the ability to directly impact someone else—lethally—with ease. They're different problems.
In states in the US with more gun laws there are more shootings and vice versa. Same with other countries. Paris had the strictest gun laws. Chicago has strict gun laws. This is retarded. Cite a source that shows that countries with more gun laws have less violence.
I live in the UK and I feel safe even though I legally can't have a gun or knife on me in public. Because I know the law applies to everyone. No, not all police officers here hold a gun either. You know they're experienced if they have one though. Again, I wouldn't feel safe if guns were just given out willy nilly for any old bozo to get a hold of.
I know the main argument is "defence" but what do you have to defend against if guns aren't even accessible to the idiots that would use them against you?
We haven't had a recent terrorist attack using guns. Our latest was a British man in a van, before that another van where the 3 culprits started using knives on people and then the Manchester suicide bombing.
They're available to everyone. People tend to use them for food. The regulations on them are that you need to be over 18 to buy one and you aren't allowed to carry one in public (concealed or not).
WOW, I'm getting tired of debating idiots. We watch on the news every day when terrorists are killing people in European countries that do not allow guns. The police are never there to prevent the killings you complete waste of time.
Criminals will get the guns as did people get alcohol during prohibition. If they don't get guns, they will kill with illegal bombs.
The gun is not the problem. Sociaists and Liberals who allow terrorists into their nations is the problem.
Oh my God, do you literally get all your information from propaganda? You talk like you literally know nothing. Something goes wrong? Oh it's definitely those lefts messing up again. So are you saying America has never had a terrorist issue because you have guns? Because I think you're having a memory block. What with 9/11, multiple mass shootings (which hasn't been an issue in the UK) and rampant gun violence. Have guns stopped those? No. In a few cases they caused them. Proof in the link I attached if you even looked at it.
We're talking about gun violence not terrorists. But if we are talking about terrorists then we'll look at our latest terror attack that was done in a van by a British man on innocent Muslims. The one before that was an attack where a van ran through a group of people and then they used knifes to kill people. Police got to the scene very quickly and handled the situation. Then of course the very unfortunate Manchester attack but even if people had a gun what would it have done? It was a suicide bombing, the culprit was dead before anyone would have had time to react.
No I don't think the gun is the problem, stupid people being able to get a hold of them is the issue. With your laws being so lax on the issue you will always have the issue, and that's a political issue on your side, not the lefts. If you're going to openly support a pile of crap then at least stand by it and take responsibility for it.
You live in some lala land of Liberal indoctrination.
Why is it that America has less Terrorist killings than Europe? We have many guns and people can get them.
OBVIOUSLY to any person with the least amount of intelect, they would understnd the gun is not the problem!
Terrorists are stupid people who can easily get guns, yet they are seldom attacking us in America.
IT'S NOT THE GUN YOU CULTIST LIBERAL.
The fact we have more gun violence in America speaks to our freedoms to allow the people to have guns. We accept the risk of gun violence. We know full well if there were no guns, people would use cars, knives, bombs, etc. etc. etc.
It's the culture stupid! It's the broken families. It's the bleeding heart Liberalism that enables irresponsibility to raise up killers.
We could do many things to save lives. educe the speed limits, ban alcohol, ban mountain climbing, ban boating, etc. etc.
America is the land of the free and we cherish those freedoms.
You didn't read a word I said. You're literally the most ridiculous person I've ever spoken to from here and you never talk with facts or grace. I shant be replying to any arguments you throw at me, you're not worth the time.
The difference between guns and alcohol, cars etc. is that guns are specifically made to kill, and are extremely effective at doing it. Obviously, there are plenty of laws that could be introduced to "save lives" that aren't, because, although lives would be saved by mandating ~a maximum of 35 miles per hour speed limit on all roads~, it would have an overall negative effect on society. Tightening gun regulations? Not so much.
I will never understand the freakish obsession that Americans have with guns. It's insane. Here in Ireland, not only is it impossible to buy a gun (unless you're a farmer, then you need a shotgun for animals), but even our police force aren't armed, which leads to a much more peaceful and less-violent atmosphere in the country overall.
Here's a newsflash for you. If it were not for NATO nations, Ireland would be communist if there was anything the Communists wanted.
Your nation is protected by America's guns whether you understand this or not.
So in all of your deception, tell us why lowering the speed limit would be an overall negative effect on society. I thought saving tens of thousands of lives each year would be a nice effect?
Your excues are as clear as mud. I see all the time where a home owner shot an intruder in his house and saved his family from harm. That's a nice effect.
The gun is made for protection, not to kill. Every weapon since the begining of time was made for protection against enemies.
"Here's a newsflash for you. If it were not for NATO nations, Ireland would be communist if there was anything the Communists wanted."
I have no idea what you're on about here. Are you referring to the Cold War? If so, I'm not sure you realise where Ireland is. We were too busy facilitating priest rape during that time.
"So in all of your deception, tell us why lowering the speed limit would be an overall negative effect on society."
Well, in many places, yes, it does make sense to lower the speed limit if it's considered too high. You were asking why I don't support lowering the speed limit to 35 across the country. I don't know, because it would take loner to get to places?
This is just a variation on the classic gambit of "well cars kill people, axes kill people, but you don't want to ban those". You're missing the point, axes and cars do not primarily exist for inflicting fatal wounds on people. Guns do.
Yeah, there are plenty of examples when " a home owner shot an intruder in his house and saved his family from harm", but generally the extent of that harm would have been that the intruder has a gun of their own. If neither of them had guns to begin with, wouldn't that reduce the risk of the situation altogether?
"Do you honestly think that if criminals did not have guns they would stop being criminals?"
Did I claim that? Having the same number as criminals but without guns is a win in my books, buddy.
"Criminals would love knowing a home has no guns"
Present evidence that living in a country with hundreds of millions of guns such as yours will make you less likely to be robbed than in a country with no guns.
I realise that since you love guns so much you'd rather be robbed by a man with a gun than a man with a knife, but I'd beg to differ.
I gave you enough chances to address my constant points of how it is only the GUN that you are so concerned with the statistics of how countries with no guns have less gun deaths. You REFUSE to care about my point that a country that bans alcohol also has far fewer drunk driving and alcohol deaths.
Why are you only concerned with Guns? We could save far more lives banning alcohol!
This time I actually think you gave him a pretty fair chance. I'd go further and ask why places like Chicago and Paris have the strictest gun laws and yet they have all these mass shootings or loads of crime. Look at Brussels.
In nations where they do not allow alcohol, there are FAR FEWER drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths. Does that matter to you when it comes to your opposition to banning alcohol?
It's a good argument for banning alcohol yes. There are other arguments for keeping it however. I guess considering both sides of an argument and forming a moderate view is a little beyond you. Fortunately it isn't beyond your president who believes that killing some babies is ok but not as few as you dom
True the Democrats are more Pro abortion than Republicans but if I believed as strongly about it as you do I would support either. You should think about that.
Do you think they ended slavery by flipping a switch one day? No, it took Republicans electing people who were the lessor of two evils when it came to slavery, and then slowly after deacdes they outlawed the brutality.
I believe the same will happen with abortion. Republicans will pass what is feasible today, and slowly people will start understanding the inhumanity of abortion.
You are as big a fool as the people who said the same things about slavery. The problem with people accepting any inhumanity against the innocent, is their own arrogant belief that all people are just as inhuman as they are. In their own self love ego, they refuse to believe how many millions of people still possess a conscience and understand humanity.
To accept the fact that not all people are as inhuman as they are, Progressives would be admitting that they are bad people. Their insecurities will not allow this, and is why they judge and ridicule Christians and prolife groups when they shine a light on the inhumanity.
You use the same argument as every Progressive I have debated. You and they say.... both sides are just as bad.
You are as big a fool as the people who said the same things about slavery.
So people proposing the argument that slavery IN ANY FORM is wrong were fools?
The problem with people accepting any inhumanity against the innocent, is their own arrogant belief that all people are just as inhuman as they are.
You mean like Trump does?
In their own self love ego, they refuse to believe how many millions of people still possess a conscience and understand humanity.
Yep Trump has a huge huge ego. Isnt that partly why you elected him?
To accept the fact that not all people are as inhuman as they are, Progressives would be admitting that they are bad people. Their insecurities will not allow this, and is why they judge and ridicule Christians and prolife groups when they shine a light on the inhumanity.
I admit that by your logic any advocacy of abortions AT ANY STAGE should be seen as inhumane and the fact you support Trump so strongly is laughable. If every political party was supporting gassing Jews in Germany - do you know what I would do?? I WOULDNT VOTE FOR ANY!! Of course though however there are independents in the US that you could have voted for that were 100% against any abortion.
You use the same argument as every Progressive I have debated. You and they say.... both sides are just as bad.
You are like a child haha. No it isnt EVERY progressive. In fact most progressives argue with you that the democrats stance on abortion is a good thing right? Silly boy.
I will give you one more example of how you are wrong, and then try to ignore your deceptive posts.
Lets say we live in a sick world whereby the Left controls everything. Lets say we have three Parties.
The Leftwing Party have made it legal to kill any child up to the age of 17.
The Rightwing Party wants to protect all life, but they compromise and allow some abortions.
The Pro life Party would protect every life today.
The Left and Right wing Parties are equally split in the electorate, so either side could win.
The Prolife Party gets less than one percent of the vote because the vast majority of voters have become selfish inhuman fools.
So, looking at reality, what should a pro life voter do? Save the lives of children up to 17 years of age, and allow some abortions, or guarantee that the Left will always win by voting for the Prolife Party? That would be guaranteeing that children up to the age of 17 can be legally killed.
There is never a different prolife candidate to vote for on our election ballots in my State. The Republican candidates are always listed as the Prolife candidate as well.
Americans love our freedom and we hate a big controlling Government telling us how to live.
For the sake of our freedoms, we accept the increased risk of deaths.
The Left also accepts those risks, UNLESS OF COURSE, it comes to guns. Then all of a sudden they are willing to give up YOUR freedoms for the sake of saving lives.
The high homocide rate is mostly due to inner city gang violence wherein the shooter does not and cannot legally own a firearm. Those are not the people who are angrily demanding that their gun rights be maintained (they most likely have already lost them). As such, the people arguing for gun rights are not likely to be killed off or even be involved in a shooting.
Hopefully after a time when the Democrat Party keeps losing elections, fools will realize that their socialistic utopia is a pure sham and only the most brainwashed cultists will still push it's agenda.
Why are you referring to the left and Americans as if they are mutually exclusive?
Quite hosently I wouldn't have a problem with banning alcohol, but your point about cars is less valid, as a low speed limit is impractical, whereas banning guns doesn't make every day tasks more difficult/time consuming.
The main reason I hear for people owning a gun is defence, but if your police is that bad, the whole police system needs increased funding.
The intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000 in US and 0.92 in UK.
The UK has strict gun laws and is difficult to smuggle guns into due to being an island (although not impossible). That means in the UK most people don't have a gun to protect themselves, yet you are less likely to be murdered.
However, Switzerland show that relaxed gun laws can still mean a homicide rate of 0.69 per 100,000.
"The intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000 in US and 0.92 in UK...Switzerland show that relaxed gun laws can still mean a homicide rate of 0.69 per 100,000"
What I take from this is that cultural factors, rather than gun laws, are responsible for the higher rate of homicides.
But the Swiss have slightly different reasons for owning guns than Americans.
The Swiss army has less than 150k active personnel, but around 2/3 men take part in compulsory military service (the others are ineligible). Therefore shooting is engrained in their culture for defence purposes.
This has some similarities with the US, except for US gun owners it's more about protecting themselves rather than the country.
This shouldn't be necessary. In a modern society you should not have to take the law into your own hands-that's the job of the police.
Being a neutral country, Switzerland doesn't need a huge active military since they don't partake in foreign wars, but they are prepared if they are invaded.
"In a modern society you should not have to take the law into your own hands-that's the job of the police."
If we're talking of ideals (should) then there shouldn't be any criminals at all. The police can't be everywhere at once. If someone tries to rob or kill you the robbery or homicide will already have taken place before the police arrive. As such fight or flight are your only two options if you wish to prevent being the victim of crime. It's not taking the law into your own hands it's self defense. Taking the law into your own hands would be if you were robbed and afterwards decided to track down and kill the perpetrator (like in the "Taken" films).
Why do you keep spewing statistics about saving lives when you refuse to ban alcohol, or drive slower speed limits to save tens of thousands of lives each year.
I think you've misread my post or replied to the wrong person. I was stating the cops can't be everywhere at once and that therefore you will need a gun to defend yourself, regardless of the quality of the police force.
The police most times come after the killing is done.
How on earth is a cop going to get to your home before the intruder has already killed you?
Maybe you missed it as we watch over in Europe every week. The police MOST TIMES get there after the terrorist killings have already occurred.
So I guess the inconveinence of Guns owners to no longer be able to target shoot, or hunt, or sleep peaceably knowing they can protect their family, is not as important as your practicallity and conveinence of driving faster speed limits?
So I guess all those lives that you say you are concerned over, are not that important to you when it comes to effecting your enjoyment in life.
Here's an idea. GIVE IT UP, YOU ARE SPEWING UTTER GARBAGE! These Professors and Liberal elites have dumbed you down. Use your brain if it is still functioning.
I wouldn't mind regulation on alcohol consumption. It shouldn't be banned though. Wine is the only thing that pairs perfectly with cheese.
In California, they are improving metro systems so that people would use less cars. They implemented public bike systems as well. I mean there is a lot infrastructure to build in order to gradually avoid using the car but liberals are voting to do so. Meanwhile, I'm sure there are hypocrites who take the car to drive for 5-10 minutes. But I wouldn't say that it is the majority. At least where I am now it isn't. California is a full of healthnut. Driving makes them fat so they won't drive the car. I means it's for the wrong reasons but they won't complain if there were regulations.
I personally hate cars and driving terrifies me. I walk or bike or share a ride (if it is really too far).
So as a socialist, I say yes to regulations on alcohol ( it's bad for the skin anyway ;) ) and yes to no cars!
Hi! I am. Well I am a socialist here. In Europe I would be a centrist.
Well, what a great question :) actually , I am looking to be hired with a company who want to implement the Hyperloop. It's hasn't been done yet but there many projects in development. I will let you read about it. It is a really cool reading. The movement is basically based on electromagnetic force.
But can that Hyperloop be built without the use of fossil fuels. I would like to know can you tell me of one nation in the world that does not need or use fossil fuels.
Hmm, I would have to think about that but I wouldn't say it's impossible. And actually, In Europe they have electric metro systems.
We already had this discussion. And no there isn't today a single country that doesn't use fossil fuels.
Let's stay on topic though. I genuinely love talking about this with you but I've already given a borderline response and I don't want to increase my chances of being banned.
Now here is my position on gun rights and all the thing discussed:
1. Terrorists attacks : clearly whether guns are legal or not nothing can stop an insane man from killing a bunch of people. So, I disagree with people who say that making guns illegal will reduce the number of terrorist attacks.
2. Banning car: No. I actually would to add that even though gun and car are equally dangerous,a car's original function is transportation while the original function of a gun is to protect or attack. The essence of a gun is violent. So, I will correct my statement. Even if I do feel Uncomfortable while driving and aroUnd cars, that fear is based on my unpleasant experiences. Not everyone shares those experiences. But I don't think that whenever someone used a gun to protect or attack it was ever a pleasant experience. At least I hope not was not.
3. Banning guns: I believe gun rights rights is a bit outdated but a lot of people hold on to that right and I live around those people. They want safety and I do to. If they want a gun and live in a society with me, I must know that these gun owners are vey qualified for me to not be scared shitless when I see them pointing a gun. Whether they are pointing it at me or another person next to me, I want to know that that person knows what they are doing. They know how to shoot to kill or to hurt or to warn. I don't want to hear that some guy shot someone who was unarmed or shot him by accident or didn't know the gun was loaded. Taking a life is such an irreparable damage, if you ever intend to do it you better have a really really good reason. A good reason isn't intuition or instinct or that every feeling of impending danger. a good reason is based on facts and logical reasoning. Something that when under pressure is hard to do but when trained properly it is possible.
I say move to a socialist nation, and allow freedom loving Americans to live their lives as they choose. We understand the risks of driving, and alcohol, and guns, etc. but what we understand even more is the risk of Liberals like yourself trying to forcing your ideology on us all.
You are a controlling PC fanatic who thinks you have the right to force us all to live as you say so.
Ohh FromWithin you managed to finally cross a line with me. :-(
I am not forcing. Why on earth would I want to force you ? I mean listen, if having a gun means freedom for you then fine. But as the other person without a gun, who lives in your society, as an American who worked hard and contributed to the development of this country , I have an equal voice. I was born and raised here. My father fought for this country. My grandfather too. I will too. It is my home and it isn't wrong to try and make it feel more safe. I won't force. It is idiotic to even believe that I can force my thought onto others. If that is possible, that means that the person is completely stupid. I can try and convince people to join my fight but if they disagree, fine. But this is as much my home as it is yours so, no ! I will stay here.
Same here. As long as my freedoms are not at risk, I will nicely stay in my corner.
I also want to keep it safe. we all want the same things. We just don't agree on the way to achieve it. our global objectives are the same.
But anyway, the reason I am skeptical about guns is close the reason I am uncomfortable around cars. The way it can so easily take a life scares me. It can most of all take a life by accident. I mean I won't say that regulating guns will necessarily reduce terrorist attacks. I actually don't believe it will. It you want to kill a lot of people a gun is not necessary. But what bothers me, is the stupid fatalities caused by guns. Or how easily guns can legally land in the hands of sociopaths.
This father was explaining to his three children that guns were not to be played with. He shot the gun once to show them the danger and I suppose he forgot that the gun was still loaded. He pointed it to his daughter and pulled the trigger. Killed his little girl. it's stupid things you know that happen that can be avoided if there were more regulations.
I understood recently that some things are cultural. Gun rights is an purely American thing. When I think of guns I think of Cowboys. there is something romantic about gun rights in the US. We are Cowboys at heart and taking a gun from a Cowboys just takes away his essence. I get that.
But here is what I believe will make me feel safer in my community. I personally won't trust myself with a gun unless I have extensive training. I want a body fitness test, vision test, a psychological test, a quality shooting test ( similar to the one FBI and military does), and maybe a simulated experience test. I also want to pass that test every 5 years.
How can I feel safe around gun owners who can't make a precise shot or who have reckless or impulsive tendencies?
This goes for police officers and anyone who owns a gun: I want to know that they will think before shooting and know exactly what their intentions are when they pull the trigger.
In that case, I actually might feel a lot safer and freer to walk around the streets. I feel that this type of regulation better protects my right to life and ensures that I won't take someone else's right.
All your fears of mishandling of guns and accidents, is no different then stupid boating accidents, drownings in pools, motorcycle accidents, mountain climbing, speeding, drunk driving, etc., etc. etc.
Accidents happen every day and we will live with it because you can't legislate common sense intelligence.
The same fool who would point a gun at his daughter and pull the trigger, is someone who would do other things that could cost someone their life.
I don't want to live in a nation that strips our freedoms for the sake of unsafe idiots.
I don't even Know what to say... Regulations isn't taking away your Liberty. It's making sure you exercise your Liberty without taking other people rights.
That man killed his own child but he could have accidentally killed yours. The man could have killed people with a car or a boat but the purpose of those object are not to kill. Most people use a boat or car with intentions to move around. Most people use a gun with intentions to kill. So, even though both are potentially dangerous, I can reasonably assume if I am looking at a man driving a car he is just driving a car. But if I am facing a man with a gun in his hands, it is unreasonable to assume that maybe he isn't trying to kill me.
Everything is potentially dangerous. A gun is purposely dangerous.
You find it normal that someone can own a gun without properly knowing how to shoot ?I actually find that it steps on my right as a non gun owner. Those people are dangerous to the general public not just to criminals. I just don't understand.
Olala la! No I am not giving up a right OR AM I TRYING TO TAKE YOURS. please read again my earlier argument. I repeat : regulation is not going to take your right or limit it.
Look there are rules and regulations. Guns isn't amd shouldn't be an exception to that rule.! I will fight so that people go through better training and harder tests in Order to own a gun.
How is that giving up your right ?
Requiring that people be older than 21 to drink is a regulation. It isn't taking away my right. Passing a written test and driving test is a regulation to maximize the number of responsible drivers.
I don't think you understood my argument because I really don't understand your response. I am not asking to 100% protect people from idiots. No matter what we do there will always be idiots.
BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS REDUCE THAT NUMBER.
Yes, believe it or not, regulations considerably reduce the number of stupid accidents.
If you are fine with requiring that people pass driving tests to be able to drive WHY are you not okay with making gun test more complete and harder? It will produce people who can better handle a gun. How is that on any level taking away a right??
Anyone can pass those tests. It will Just require more training and it might take longer to have the certificate but if you really believe in that right the you should be fine with it.
We are talking about the Democrat's goal of taking our guns, not some simple gun safety courses that we already take when getting hunting licenses, etc.
No matter how many safety courses you give, there will be idiots who do not follow them.
I have no problem with safety courses BUT THAT IS NOT THE LEFT'S GOAL!
It is about the inconsistencies of liberal ideas. FromWithin did mention limits on alcohol and driving in his text. He did it to point out that liberals fight for unregulated driving and alcohol consumption but want gun control.
He pointed out liberal hypocrisy and bullshit of them wanting to regulate gun for the safety of others.
Basically, ( FromWithin is welcome to tell me if I misunderstood ), if liberals truly fight for the safety of others they should fight for regulations on alcohol consumption and driving. That is what o believe the point he was making.
It isn't insane for me to respond to what FromWithin was saying in his description.
