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.
What about legal system like in civilized countries? There is no reason why random drunks should own assault weapons ... .22 handgun will protect anyone enough... and like in for example Czech Republic if you want to own a weapon you have undergo: psychological evaluation, health check, fire range training, legal stuff, background check, fist aid training, you have to be 25 years old, then you may purchase weapon class E (handgun).
There is obvious exception for former military, cops...
there are many hoops to buying/owning "assault weapons" but im guessing you dont dont know the true definition to what they really are. whats to stop jay leno from snapping out one day, going into his garage picking one of the 1000 cars he owns and mowing down hundreds of people at the rose bowl parade?
there are many tools to use if one wants to say fuck it and go on a killing spree.
and people arent born crazy, one day you can be completely "normal" buy a gun, the next day something may happen to you that totally makes you see life in a different perspective.
i dont think you understand the real agendas to why firearms are being demonized.
do you really want to trust government on judging who is worthy? and just imagine all the benefits/profits that would give them/gov to conduct such studies/control.
that ridiculous, 25yo and up
and it is possible to get shot 10 times with a .22 and still break the neck of the shooter.
watch this video...imagine that is you/wife/kid in the truck and all the bikers decide to rape/kill you...whats to stop them? the police? a .22cal 6 shooter?
Assault rifles are single purpose devices, designed to kill as many people as possible, not to harm but to kill whole groups of people. It is an offence weapon. Not practical for personal defence at all.
there are many tools to use if one wants to say fuck it and go on a killing spree.
But they are not designed with single purpose of mass killing.
i dont think you understand the real agendas to why firearms are being demonized.
Untested people with weapons .... yeah lets give mentally ill people automatic weapons... or random drunk, religious weirdos... how that can get wrong...
do you really want to trust government on judging who is worthy? and just imagine all the benefits/profits that would give them/gov to conduct such studies/control.
Like in the UK, Australia or Japan? Czech rep....? it works for them ...on the other side no gun law like in the US or somalia is not doing very good.
and it is possible to get shot 10 times with a .22 and still break the neck of the shooter.
In movies maybe :D ...one hit in chest, head or legs stops anyone
Assault rifles are single purpose devices, designed to kill as many people as possible, not to harm but to kill whole groups of people. It is an offence weapon. Not practical for personal defence at all.
Just to let you know, this doesn't show you understand at all what an assault rifle is.
There is no reason why random drunks should own assault weapons
This statement shows you are a fool. You went from banning people with mental conditions to people who like to drink alcohol. That's a huge jump.
.22 handgun will protect anyone enough
This shows that you can't be talked to. You go from talking about assault weapons to only allowing a .22 handgun. Another huge jump. How are we supposed to have a real discussion about gun control if nothing you say is connected?
There is obvious exception for former military, cops...
Former cop shot guy in movie theater in Florida because he was playing with his phone.
This statement shows you are a fool. You went from banning people with mental conditions to people who like to drink alcohol. That's a huge jump.
No, weapons are not chew toys. It should not be held by irresponsible people, which drunks and retards clearly are.
This shows that you can't be talked to. You go from talking about assault weapons to only allowing a .22 handgun. Another huge jump. How are we supposed to have a real discussion about gun control if nothing you say is connected?
simply because .22 is enough, point of self defence is in defending yourself no to kill everybody around...
Former cop shot guy in movie theater in Florida because he was playing with his phone.
f he was fired for being mentally fucked, he would not be given a right to carry weapon... which would prevent the shooting.
There is no reason why civilians should be able to buy/own large calibres, large clips, silencers, special ammo or automatic weapons. Drunks are same as any other drug addicts. Mentally ill ... In more civilised countries strict gun laws works.
You are brainwashed by weapons lobby. To buy more and more, and more .....
Why not to allow civilians to own mortars, RPGs, chemical weapons? ...for self defence off course... 2nd amendment ... so?
There is no reason why civilians should be able to buy/own large calibres, large clips, silencers, special ammo or automatic weapons. Drunks are same as any other drug addicts. Mentally ill ... In more civilised countries strict gun laws works.
There is only one reason to take away the guns of civilians and allow the government agencies to use them, and that is to conquer the citizens. Drunks are not the same as any other addict. Those are alcoholics. The term drunk should not be brought up in a gun control debate unless you prefer to sound like an idiot.
You are brainwashed by weapons lobby. To buy more and more, and more .....
No, I am brainwashed by the liberals who constantly want to take away my right to own a gun.
Why not to allow civilians to own mortars, RPGs, chemical weapons? ...for self defence off course... 2nd amendment ... so?
I haven't even begin to discuss what should be banned or not. I am only pointing out that you are a complete idiot.
I hoped that because I was talking about "17th century" that you realize that I WAS SARCASTIC. There is no way how to fight government, so rifles are pointless, because guess what... you cannot shot down rocket, drone or helicopter by rifle....
I love this argument. So, you think I am safe from the government because they can vaporize me if they wanted to. I feel so safe. Let's look at the 20th century when the Nazis had gun control. It was effective.
No, It says and I quote "Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least."...
Good, you don't understand English, we can ignore your opinion.
If town A has 50 gun deaths and 50 knife deaths you would claim it is less safe than town B that has 30 gun deaths and 90 knife deaths. It is stupid for you to claim that the town with 120 deaths is safer than the town with 100 deaths no matter what journal you quote.
It's not BS. You just agreed that since town A is safer I have debunked your source.
That or you are arguing that town B is safer making your argument based on ignorance.
We have to agree that I have defeated your first argument if you want me to continue because I need to know there is an actual way to get through your thick skull.
You must also weigh the culture we have created in America. Self-defense is something to be expected. In some areas the population density is incredibly thick. Shootings and violence should be common in these areas.
First set of numbers is a rate averaged over the population. Second set is raw numbers of deaths that is not averaged over population. Somebody is cheating.
Imagine a country whose constitution enshrined the right to own poisonous snakes, and had widespread poisonous snake ownership. Imagine this country had a problem with high fatalities due to poisonous snake bites well in excess of other similar countries.
Then imagine this country, and it's well-funded lobby of poisonous snake breeders and owners arguing that the high rate of fatal poisonous snake bites were due to (a) poor snake handling techniques, or (b) violent video games, or (c) drugs and urban gangs, or (d) some other ludicrous reason.
Then imagine this same coalition of pro-poisonous snake owning lobbies went on TV and said the problem was insufficient poisonous snake ownership, or too many restrictions on poisonous snake ownership, or insufficient enforcement of existing laws around poisonous snake ownership. And then rubbishing studies that correlated high rates of poisonous snake ownership with high rates of fatalities due to poisonous snake bites.
I think guns are as evil as the people who use them. They are also very cowardly and impersonal. Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity. I wish all guns and all weapons would just disappear from the face of the earth.
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.
Banning guns in America only takes them away from one group:
Law-abiding citizens.
The military and police will keep their guns, of course.
Criminals will still be able to get guns. Tech has reached a point where this is inevitable. The US has too much border to patrol to prevent illegal weapons imports. We already have a huge illegal weapons market within our borders! And don't forget that working firearms have been assembled using 3-D printers, or the fact that there are plans on the internet for constructing firearms using off the shelf parts at home depot and minimal tools- for a couple of the plans, a basic dremel tool has all of the attachments you'd need.
Banning guns will make the illegal market larger and more profitable. I'd expect more weapons to be smuggled in from Mexico, and even Canada to meet the demand. This is not a slight against Mexico or Canada in general, mind you, but a simple fact that there are greedy, unscrupulous individuals everywhere. The market would certainly be taken advantage of.
If homemade firearms become more common out of 'necessity,' the problem is compounded. Improvised weapons are already a problem in prison- imagine if knowledge on how to build a firearm from scratch became more common amongst criminals?
The Europe comparison is what, in fact, is a pile of shit. Europe is not at all comparable to the US in this regard for two main reasons.
First and foremost is the power the government holds vs the territory they have to enforce regulations upon. The United States represents a territory comparable to all of Europe combined. Gun enforcement represents a logistical nightmare at the federal level that nothing in all of Europe comes anywhere near to approaching. In order to be remotely comparable, we'd have to be comparing individual States within the US with nations in Europe, and that simply falls flat- from one end, our state governments have significantly less power and infrastructure to utilize said power than national governments in Europe do, and are further curtailed by the division of power between the state and federal governments. A categorical gun ban within the US would be all but impossible to enforce.
Secondly is the culture (as well as criminal culture) within the regions. Already, with firearms being generally legal within the US, we have a significantly larger black market weapons trade within our borders, again, than all of Europe combined. Basic supply and demand applies here- there is simply more demand for firearms, legal or illegal, within the United States than there is within Europe. Banning guns will in fact increase the demand for illegal firearms, driving up prices and attracting further suppliers. This is not speculation, but extrapolation of what we've already seen within the few regions within the US where firearms are actually illegal (which amounts mainly to a handful of cities at current).
In short, Europe is overall better equipped to regulate firearms than the US is due to enjoying both a lower demand for firearms and more potency within the government to police things at the local level.
If you'd like to contest some of my points specifically, feel free to do so. But a one-off 'look at Europe' completely lacking in details and specifics does not dispute what I've asserted in any way.
Europe is also a bad comparison because many of the nations in Europe have significantly more crime per capita than the United States do. Note 'Per Capita.' The graph in the link offers both; US is the highest in total number of crimes but also has a significantly larger population than the European nations. Disclaimer: Data in link is from 2002.
statistics are done per 100 000 people so the overall population does not matter. Strict gun law does equals less dead people. It always does and every where.
Because otherwise US would have to be the safest place on Earth with lowest crime rates ....
The chart linked is not per 100,000 people. The 'Total crime' chart is raw total numbers; 11.88 million per 100,000? The 'Per Capita' chart is instances per 100,000 people as you assert, and the US is at #22 on that list, having less than half the total crime per capita that the UK has.
Strict gun law does not equal less dead people. In fact, the areas within the US that have the strictest gun control laws have some of the highest gun crime rates- look at New York City, for example. The UK also has a comparable per capita murder rate to the US- they simply have far more murders committed with other weapons/means. I'm sure if you go looking high enough you could find an apples-to-apples comparison that supports your claim, but it's incredibly easy to find cases where your claim is unsupported.
I appreciate the ideal you're going for, but it's simply not factual in reality.
I again request that you attempt to address my points- your most recent post still did not do that, just made some completely unbacked claims that don't really have a basis in reality, and an observation re: my data that indicates that you either did not read it or did not comprehend it properly.
The LOWEST amongst these represents nearly triple the number of gun murders that you noted. If your overall murder rates are as far off as your gun murder rates are, adjusting for that puts UK more or less on par with the US.
And this doesn't address the fact that the assault rate in the UK is nearly 4x that in the US. I wonder if that discrepancy has to do with the lethality of guns?
You've made a pretty good case for keeping guns illegal in the UK at least; if the UK had the same gun laws and availability as the US, I'd expect they'd wipe themselves out to a man within a year.
Any statement in support of banning guns is shortsighted and naive.
I gave you official UN statistics... you gave me list of HOMICIDES moron.
I gave you a list of years, and the number of recorded gun murders in the UK for each. The link shows this, in comparison to the overall gun rate. You do not provide a link to your source, nor do you even respond when I request what year they're referring to. All I have is your word regarding those sources, and that's not adding up too well.
it does not. US has 5x more murder in general and 600 times more gun kills....
Yes, US has 5x more murder in general. We also have roughly 5x the population of the UK. And from the statistics I've linked, the US has around 100-300 times more total gun kills than the UK does on any given year- not 600. That works out to 30-60 times more gun kills per capita, which the UK makes up for in stabbings, etc.
IT WORKS EVERYWHERE
Only if you're willing to 1) ignore most cases and cherry-pick specific ones that support your position, 2) Bounce back and forth between per capita and total numbers when the one you're using suddenly doesn't support you anymore, and 3) Flatout lie where needed.
You know, the same methods always used to make statistics appear to say something they don't.
Are the ad hom attacks really necessary? For someone ostensibly opposed to conflict, you certainly do love to escalate. Are you from Glasgow?
Thank you for not addressing anyone's argument on here. I am glad you were treating me like you treat everyone when you completely ignored what I said. I am glad I am not a special case.
Europe is also a bad comparison because many of the nations in Europe have significantly more crime per capita than the United States do. Note 'Per Capita.' The graph in the link offers both; US is the highest in total number of crimes but also has a significantly larger population than the European nations. Disclaimer: Data in link is from 2002
You cannot compare general crime because that is state of law. Many things that are considered crime in the UK are not crime in the US...
Why don't you compare murder rates? Gun kills? Last time I checked US had 600x more gunkills than UK...
Comparing gun kills to gun kills isn't a valid comparison due to the relative availability of each; guns are more available in the US than they are in UK.
Why don't we compare murder rates, then? Last I checked, the overall per capita murder rate in the UK was comparable to that of the US- just a lot more beatings, stranglings, and stabbings and a few less shootings.
BS...crazy people have every right to defend themselves just as your fat ass does...but if they decide to cross the line, they should be punished accordingly.
Ok I was with you until this. People that are unstable shouldn't be able to have guns. You say they should because its there right and if they go to far they will be punished but that is completely crazy! So we will allow them to have guns but when they kill someone well then they can't have them YOU ARE INSANE!! lol puns
if it is well known/proven they are completely unstable "bat shit crazy"...they shouldnt have access to a car, knife, gun, freedom to walk down the fucking street. but using the whole gun argument and crazy people is just going to open up a bunch of BS doors..."well, so and so is on medication...they could be technically classified as mentally ill...lets take their gun freedoms away just in case, and leave them vulnerable to all the rapists/murderers living near by"
you shouldnt be able to punish people before they do the crime. not allowing "crazy" people guns is a punishment.
i heard on the news some little girl got mulled by a pitbull..should we take yours away now, just in case?
People should have to prove mental stability and undergo safety training to obtain a permit than they can have all of the unregistered weapons they merry heart desires.
should people have to jump through all those hoops before they buy a car or pump 50 gallons of gasoline? should the government be selling permits to anybody that wants to build a potato gun?
well....thats not possible...are you too stupid to understand that?
and your idea of whats mentally unstable is probably over exaggerated.
if we start opening up those doors, it wont be long before government is labeling 60% of us unstable...."what, you believe 911 was an inside job"?! [rubber stamp "mentally ill"] gun privileges denied"!
if you dont like the guns in america...you should move to a country that doesnt need them.
i grew up in a dangerous town...where it wasnt unusual for a gang of 4-6 niggers to break into a house. can a family survive an invasion like that without a gun? should they be expected to wait for the useless pigs to show up?
aside from that...the U.S gov is getting a little too ballsy...giving up our arms now would be suicide.
No, USA is an incredibly dangerous place. Citizens need to have lethal weapons in their possession what a scary place to be. The rest of the civilized world does not.
That's complete bullshit. Somalia, Iraq, South Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Columbia, Honduras, North Korea... those are incredibly dangerous places. Crime statistics on the internet are all over the place but for the most part the US stats per person are about the same to way less than that of the UK.
This site for example shows the amount of crimes in the UK being about half that of the US yet the US is almost five times more populous.
The right of the people to bear arms is a fundamental right as long as they prove they are mentally stable, undergo safety training and obtain a permit. Cars can be used to murder, should we ban those too?
Self defense. I think gun control is good but gun control helps keep a balance for guns. It does not bann guns but it puts a stricter law enforcement on guns
The Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The answer to the debate question is obvious. Banning weapons is unconstitutional. Certain weapons are only necessary that they are banned such as RPG's or Missile Launchers.
There is a difference in gun laws and banning guns. A lot of these morons think that if they don't flat out ban guns; people will kill their children with mini guns and what not.
It is the right of every human to be able to protect his or herself. In a world without guns, there would still be murder (bombs, knives, lynchings, car murders etc). My mom has been a police officer for over 20 years in D.C. and even she agrees that people should have guns. She knows first-hand that the police can only get there after somebody is dead, and that the police cannot stop crimes.
