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.
Should we abolish
Before posting I want you to consider that all the places where all the recent shootings took place where so called "gun free zones" this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these zones are not only ineffective but dangerous because they are a place where a blood thirsty psyco can be shure he can make the most of the 30 minutes he/she/they have before the police arrive. The best way to minimize the risk of massicar is to allow the citizenry the tools nessisary to stop one as soon as it starts there are instances of school shootings and theater shootings being stopped and even prevented by armed bystanders for example check out the links I posted in the debate section.
The other point I want to make is laws only stop the law abiding. someone intent on committing murder the most serious crime in our countrie is not going to be stopped because a lesser crime with a lesser punishment stands in his way. never has a street racer been thwarted by a speed limit, never has a drive by been prevented because its illegal to keep loded gun in your car. And never has a school shooting mall shooting or theater shooting ever been foile by a "gun free zone
I don't think gun free zones cause shootings, but I sure don't think they help. It's not like a would-be mass murderer is going to say, "Oh shit, they don't allow guns here. I'm going to have to pick a different place."
My point exactly and to add on to that I believe in some cases such as the aurora Colorado shooting and the recent mall shootings the fact that the buildings were "gun free zones" may have influenced the shooters decision. And Adam Lanza picked sandy hook and no one knew his motive for choosing an elementary school my theory is that it was the nearest "gun free zone" or for shock value/infamy maybe both.
OK, now this is something I don't like about CreateDebate. Since my side is "Yes" and you clicked "Dispute," it set your side to "No," when that's obviously not what you want. Now the vote is 2-1 when it should be 3-0.
It's okay I fixed it. You can switch the side you want your argument to contribut points to by clicking edit or while typing it. Just click the small blue "switch" button located above the text box bellow the orange side title at the top of the page in this case the orange "yes" or "no"
Is there evidence that shooters target gun free zones? I would think that Adam Lanza just wanted to shoot up his old elementary school. Even if it weren't labeled gun free, that's no reason to expect that someone would be armed. And he was planning to die anyway, so it wouldn't matter all that much if someone were armed.
Well it would matter if he wanted to kill a lot of people. These shooters want to die in a way they deem "glorious" and being shot by someone who was supposed to be one of their victims before they've gotten three rounds off is probably not what most of them have in mind. And no there's no evidence it's just my theory he wanted to attack our children ware we think they are safe. It would add to his infamy.
Getting shot by an intended victim before getting three rounds off would be a worst case scenario for the shooter. Best case scenario (for the shooter), the hero misses and kills some bystanders, then the shooter kills the hero and takes his gun.
On average, the hero takes a while to find the shooter and figure out how to subdue them without hurting anyone else, and the shooter makes maybe half as many kills as they otherwise would have. I don't know, I'm just guessing here.
And this is only if someone is armed, which might not be the case. I don't know if the possibility of another gun out there is going to be much of a deterrent.
The best case scenario (for the shooter) is he gets to massacre freely for 30minutes then kill himself when the cops arrive. he/she is there to kill as Manet people as they can because its fun to them they don't want anyone els stealing there fun.
The best case scenario (for the shooter) is he gets to massacre freely for 30minutes then kill himself when the cops arrive. he/she is there to kill as Manet people as they can because its fun to them they don't want anyone els stealing their fun. Or they are there for revenge and don't want anyone stealing their revenge.
they should and since most shootings are taking places at scholl they should have a securtiy gaurd armed with a small firearm there onyly job would to patrole the premisis and make sure that there is no one there should be there
To stop the killing with guns you you have to make it harder to get guns. I don't think more guns is going to make things more safer. Who is going to stop the good guy from going bad?
The fact that the good guy is a good guy prevents them from doing bad. If a good guy were to do bad, they wouldn't be a good guy anymore, now would they?
But why are you so focused on just gun killings? Shouldn't it be the Total kills that you're worried about? Having more guns may not decrease the percentage of "gun deaths" but is sure as hell reduces overall crime rates and overall murder rates.
That is extremely stupid, I'm sorry but it is. Clearly, in your mind, criminals follow the law and by making it harder to get guns will force these criminals to follow these anti-gun laws just like the kind law-abiding citizens they are. Dude, seriously? Criminals will get guns no matter what. They have black markets etc. They aren't going to follow any damn gun laws. We need guns as citizens to protect ourselves from these criminals.
You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun. So, good guys can't have their guns. But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the bad guys. So, bad guys can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them.
where everyone wants to shoot you
This thought is just insane.
Newtown was a gun free zone by your definition of gun free zone.
You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun.
In gun free zones, yes.
So, good guys can't have their guns.
Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals.
But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the bad guys.
Why on Earth would we take the guns from the police? We would prevent the criminals from getting guns but when they do inevitable, the police would stop them. There would be way less gun violence if only the police and the criminals had them, and every time a criminal showed his, was stopped.
So, bad guys can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them.
Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise.
Newtown was a gun free zone by your definition of gun free zone.
Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals.
I am sorry that you are confused. We are only talking about non law enforcement, the civilians. Your whole argument makes no sense after that.
Normal civilians with guns stop criminal civilians. Please address my previous argument with this in mind.
"You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun. So, normal civilians can't have their guns. But, you don't do anything to take away the guns from the criminal civilians. So, criminal civilians can come in with guns and regular people can't stop them."
Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise.
Apparently you didn't read the stories. In America it is possible.
We are only talking about non law enforcement, the civilians.
They do not need guns.
Normal civilians with guns stop criminal civilians.
Normal civilians with guns are known as vigilantes. They are illegal.
Please address my previous argument with this in mind.
There is no reason to readdress your argument because I don't believe normal citizens should be shooting anyone. They never know what the situation is that made a person fire a gun.
If normal citizens are firing guns at criminal citizens then when the police come in all they see is citizens firing guns.
If a normal citizen with a gun comes into a room where a 'criminal' has a gun in his hand and their are dead students on the floor, the normal citizen with the gun will shoot the 'criminal', then an investigation reveals that all the dead children had guns. It's much better to leave this up to the police.
Well, that's not fair, you are too dumb to argue with. The stories presented describe exactly what you are against and it worked.
I see anti gun people seem to have their feelings that deep down they are helping because it feels right. The pro gun people provide evidence that guns help.
"Normal civilians with guns are known as vigilantes. They are illegal."
Really? Since when was this the case? Civilians are the sovereign power in America, not the government. And perhaps you have not heard about "private security" companies? Basically civilians with guns and uniforms, tasked with enforcing law and order on private property. Furthermore, the police force is nothing more than a private security firm hired by the government anyway. If anything is illegal, it's granting these "public security firms" special privileges normal civilians are not allowed.
"You are saying in this area it is illegal to carry a gun."
That's already the case, and yet criminals still gain access to these areas, WHILE in possession of guns, and STILL shoot people up in these areas. How does making having guns in these places illegal stop criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, from bringing guns in ANYWAY?
"Are we in a comic book? Can we refer to them in the proper terms, the good guys, are the police. The bad guys, are the criminals."
I guess this makes the average citizen "collateral damage."
Sorry, I don't want to be collateral damage, I want to be able to defend myself from criminals who are in front of me NOW, while the Police are still MINUTES AWAY.
"Civilians can't stop gunmen in the 1st place, criminal or otherwise."
Well, when you deny them their natural right of self defense, yes, that's true. However, any and all civilians who carry guns and exercise their right to self-defense, CAN stop Gunmen. Whether they were legally carrying or not.
"Were their police with guns in newtown?"
Not at the place the shooter shot up. Obviously. That's why there should have been some CIVILIANS with Guns there, because the police, even though THEY were allowed to carry, were entirely absent.
Whether a policeman can carry a gun or not is irrelevant if the police aren't there exactly at the when a gun is needed.
Please tell me your being sarcastic. First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter? Second all the stories told of instances when gun toting bystanders saved people thus proving that disarming citizens is a bad thing. And third when have those laws prohibiting kids from substances completely legal for adults ever worked? Did you even go to high school?
First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter?
You mean to tell me guns free means no police either?
Second all the stories told of instances when gun toting bystanders saved people thus proving that disarming citizens is a bad thing.
You know who else was a gun toting bystander? The original shooter. If they did searches of people that would have prevented the criminalistic gun toting citizens from shooting people, but as I said I don't want that.
when have those laws prohibiting kids from substances completely legal for adults ever worked?
They lower the frequency. You must admit that.
I'm usually in your favor with the gun control rules, but now you want to take the peace of mind from the people who want a gun free area.
"First of all gun free means just that no guns period how can that be any stricter?"
If one was to make the fun free zone stricter, that would be the only option, to disarm police officers as well. Why do you support police officers being armed but not civilians? Certainly armed civilians can exist in places the police will not always frequent. Thus providing equal force to counter a killer as a police officer would.
"You know who else was a gun toting bystander? The original shooter. If they did searches of people that would have prevented the criminalistic gun toting citizens from shooting people, but as I said I don't want that."
By definition the shooter could not have been a bystander. -.-
So we've screened the murderer, he's not carrying a gun. He enters the gun-free zone, and then pulls out a sword...
Or he gains access to the zone by some back-entrance not screened and pulls out his gun...
Or he shoots into the gun-free zone from outside of it...
Or he lives and works in this gun-free zone for many years, and, using the tools and materials available in the zone, builds himself a gun... or sword...
Or, just to be a prick, he bombs the entrance to the zone, killing the screening guards, and then pulls out his gun and enters the zone...
How do you solve these issues?
"What next, a mandatory gun in every home!?!?"
Actually that would be one of few mandates I would actually support, somewhat.
Abolish all legally created Gun Free Zones (private entities should be free to make their own rules, but highly encouraged to not forbid weapons),
And THEN, establish mandatory gun responsibility and training courses in school, at a young age. Educate children that guns are not toys and are NOT to be treated lightly, and are most certainly not to be used for selfish reasons like killing someone you dislike or who treats you bad.
Then provide safe competitions and contests for students to settle their beef with each other, rather than resorting to killing and bullying.
I would find that gun free zones are nothing more then wishful thinking. Concerts for example are "gun free zones". Yet, in the case of dime bag Darrel (lead guitarist of Damage Plan) was gunned down on stage in front of many fans.
If everyone had been armed with guns and knives he may have thought twice about taking a hostage and the three others that died along with the guitarist would probably have survived. Nathan Gale was also shot dead by the police.
They don't really help at all. Actually, they help the gunman because that eliminates the risk of the psychopath getting shot by another citizen with a concealed weapon.
I read an article about a women and her parents shopping in a "Gun Free Zone," so like a law-abiding citizen, she left her gun in the car. As she was shopping with her parents, a gunman walked in and killed both of them, but the women lived. She had to live with the fact that she could have saved her parents, if she had her gun with her.
To stop the killing with guns you you have to make it harder to get guns. I don't think more guns is going to make things more safer. Who is going to stop the good guy from going bad?
Having Armed Police Officers present reduces the amount of crime that occurs in that present location.
Why? It's not because they're police officers. It's because it is an Armed Deterrent.
Police Officers can not exist in all places at once. So this necessarily means that the Armed Deterrent is lacking in certain specific areas.
Put guns in everyone's hands, and then you have successfully placed an Armed Deterrent anywhere and everywhere a civilian is present. What stops these Armed Civilian good guys from going bad? All the other Armed Civilians surrounding them who can shoot them the moment they turn bad.
No one is making the argument that saying that a school is a gun free zone will stop 100% of mass shootings. If someone wants to go shoot up a school, there isn't much you can do to stop that. People with access to guns are capable of killing people, after all, whatever laws are in place.
But, the law isn't trying to make schools 100% safe. They are trying to make schools safer.
If everyone had a gun, we still wouldn't stop mass shootings. People would still be able to kill a number of people, if they attacked a school with assault rifles and grenades. But there would also be a huge number of accidental deaths, and of shootings done in anger, in the moment. People have shot their loved wifes and husbands, their boyfriends and girlfriends of many years, the people they love most in their lives. Put them in a fight at school (like what happens hundreds of times all over the world) and give them a gun, and there'll be hundreds of deaths every day at schools.
Yes, if you say that the aim of making a school a gun free zone is to stop 100% of shootings, then you can say that it has failed in this respect. But any reasonable assessment of their effectiveness will clearly show that they have saved an uncountable number of lives.
Let me start my counter argument with a quote regarding the second part of your argument "those who sacrifice liberty in the name of safety shall deserve neither and lose both"-Benjamin Franklin. We see through out history whenever gun control laws are put in place violent crime and murder in particular go up. The vast majority of our nations homicide rate aside from vehicular man slaughter and medical malpractice is justifiable homicide by civilians and police (self defense) and the majority of our nations actual murder rate come from Chicago, Detroit, Los Angels, and New York the 4 cities with the most restrictive gun control laws.
Unless you can actually quantify the number of lives that have been saved through gun control, yours is a non-argument and fundamentally flawed from the get-go.
Unlike yours however, one CAN quantify the number of lives that have been saved by looser control.
It stands to reason that, if one is presented with a mass shooter, and that mass shooter is shot and killed, or held at bay, before he can unload his magazine entirely, by someone who was present and carrying a firearm as well. The person has undoubtably prevented as many injuries/deaths, as the shooter had ammunition left. Furthermore, it stands to reason that the Earlier a person shoots and kills such a menance, the more lives are saved by it, and likewise the Later such a shooting can be done, the more lives are lost, or injuries caused.
The point is not to prevent a mass shooting, such thing would be entirely impossible, the point is to MINIMIZE the amount of damage that such a mass shooting can cause. If every mass murder was killed after firing just one shot, you can quantify the number of lives saved and injuries prevented. However, if all you're relying on is the honor system to prevent mass shootings, and forbid people the option of proactively removing the threat as soon as possible, Each and Every Single One of them is going to have MASS Victims.
So, which then is in actuality the real safest solution? Prevent an unknown number of "potential" mass murders, and permit the real ones that get through to cause extreme loss of life and injury? Or stop each and every one of them that actually occurs as soon as possible, as well as stop a similarly unquantifiable number (as the "gun prohibition" choice) of "potential" threats on top of that?
As for kids shooting each other in fights. This is reduced through education, teaching the kinds responsibility and to not treat guns lightly or use them in personal feuds. It can be further reduced by providing alternative means for settling disputes that equally burn out the anger, such as competitions and contests, and frequently encouraging their frequent use. It can be even further reduced through strict penalties for misuse, abuse, and criminal use of the weapons, as well as confiscation on a case by case basis, rather than unilaterally and universally.
If easily available weapons are problem, then having more of them is not obviously a solution. It's just a proof how well you have been brainwashed by weapons manufacturer's lobby.
Easily available weapons aren't the problem. Restrictive gun laws disarming the victims and leavening them vulnerable is the problem. Your argument is proof of how well you have been brain washed by the Anti-gun lobby.
"Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and lose both"-Benjamin Franklin. The means by which these psychos get guns is irrelevant and trying to restrict access to guns will punish the rest of us as well and leave us more vulnerable to criminals who do purchase their weapons illegally. I'm suggesting that a good way to lessen the risk and effect of these shootings while not increasing the national murder rate as happened in Detroit, Chicago, LA, New York and DC when their hand gun ban was active is to allow citizens to be armed in the facility's most likely to be subject to attack.
According to your "logic". Government should give away cocaine to kids because what will sort out ease of access to drugs than more easily accessible drugs?
I always enjoy that you guys never quite have the perfect solution. Much less cocaine is used. Gun deaths are almost 0, but at least the numbers are lower. Never quite get rid of drug use, never quite get rid of gun death.
If we skip place like Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan then USA is the only country on the world that allows mentally ill people to have unlimited amount of army grade weapons and ammo... so yes, you have problem with easily accessible weapons.
Good point. Well, except for the fact that those people tend to account for a very small portion of gun deaths.
The real problem is in how we deal with easily accessible firearms. Over here in America we don't want to address the issue of the mentally ill. It is just a gut reaction, and let's ban everything, oh, and maybe address accessibility.
No necessary everything, just things that aren't useful for real life self defense. Things like: large capacity mags, rifles, large caliber weapons, special ammo, silencers...
I'm from Czech Republic if you want to have a weapon (actual handgun). It used to be that only those who were drafted a had clean record from army could have a weapon.
I'm from Czech Rep.
You have to undergo 2 psychological screenings, be 25 years old, do several week training and the most important you have to prove that you need a gun. After that you will get a weapon licence. You have to chose a handgun from list of allowed ones, no special ammo, silencers, etc. allowed. You can have only one additional clip with you. If you break any rule or get drunk with weapon..etc. you loose your right to carry weapon for life.
We have ten times less gun kills per 100 000 than US and even from those is 80% suicides.
I don't understand the need to tell someone how they should defend themselves.
2 psychological screenings ... 80% suicides
So, what is wrong with the psychological screenings over there that you can't weed out the ones who will commit suicide. When we get psych screenings over here I want them to be better than yours.
In the UK it's even 4x less.
I am sorry, but with the length of time that gun regulation has been in place in England, any number of gun deaths over 0 is too high. Although, if it was kept to single digits I would still consider that success.
So, 80% of gun deaths happen because a twice screened person killed themselves, which implies that the screening failed. And, you don't think we can do better than that? So, what is the point of the screenings if they don't/can't work?
disappointed with UK's score
Yeah, why would I want to do something that doesn't work?
we have 92% less death by gun that US. So it works, they aren't screened for suicides, that isn't a crime or threat moron. You have gun like Somalia... so stop shitting "what you would do better" when you do nothing.
My favorite diversion tactic. I believe that eliminating death by gun is not really the overall goal. If the overall murder rate would be higher without guns, then the trade off of higher gun deaths is ok.
they aren't screened for suicides
Oh, ok, so all we need to do is ask the question "Hey, are you suicidal?" Sweet, that helps. It seems like a dumb idea to leave that question off the screening if you actually cared about people dieing.
Why are those who support gun control so obsessed with reducing the number of "GUN DEATHS" as opposed to the "OVERALL MURDER RATE"?
The reason the US has more gun deaths than the UK? We have more people than you guys do, plan and simple. It's got nothing to do with gun restrictions or lack there-of.
Now, please explain to me why most American gun crime occurs in areas of America where we have the strictest gun control laws in effect, and the areas in America with the lowest OVERALL CRIME rate have the Least Restrictive gun regulations. I'm still trying to spin my head around how gun control works in light of those facts.
Yes, it is. You are correct. The law to prevent gun violence in gun free areas, slows gun violence. Just as the law to prevent cocaine use, slows cocaine use.
Who said any thing about handing anything out? I'm just saying people should be allowed to have guns available to them whenever and wherever they deem it nessisary. And this doesn't apply to anyone under the legal age for ownership and carry either open or concealed of course. Maturity must still be taken into account.
There is no selection procedure who actually can own gun, neither training is mandatory.
Also .22 with 6 round mag is enough for self deference. It's light, accurate and does not penetrate walls... but that would make your true government/weapons lobby unhappy :D
There is a selection procedure it's called a background check what els do you want. And your right a 22. Revolver is a fantastic weapon in my opinion but some people want bigger guns a d the founders made it pretty clear that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed so tell your queen Dian Finstine to read the constitution.
Firearms not war heads obviously pleas try to avoid creating straw men and keep your arguments within the realm of reality. And you can own a tank they are massively expensive but its legal.
What is with you and the straw man arguments today? And no those have been outlawed by the Geneva convention so if we ever did have to fight our own government (the reason the second amendment was wrighten) we wouldn't be able to use those wouldn't need to either those are just shootable bad ideas.
Not entirely war needs rules it had them back in 1777 and it should have them now. The fact is the second amendment gives us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. And some weapons shouldn't even be used in war.
I think that it does more harm than good. In 1770 the high tech was guy on horse wit percussive rifle so it had some sense but now when potentially tyrannical government (I assume that suppose to be US gov) has things like tanks, jet, ships, submarines, missiles, nukes, bombers ...so allowing people to have rifles has no point anymore.
The hypothetical conflict would be something like present USA army vs. preset NK...
I disagree guerrilla warfare is highly effective it's the simple matter of brains over brawn you see. And the real war as every dictator knows is for the hearts and minds of the people if we convince enough people to rise up the government will be forced to back down both by internal struggle and international pressure. But we must be allowed the tools nessisary for the less glorious side of war as well.
Lets see it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Afghanistan (ask Russia) it worked in France (French resistance) it worked in Russia (Russian partisans) and oh yeah it worked in America
you are skipping a little detail that those guerrillas were fully supported and trained by another country. Also they were not attacked by "tyrannical" government otherwise they would be bombed out in few days. Same as Saddam bombed out Kurdish.
It's just a propaganda from weapons manufacturers hoping that you buy more useless weapons.
Guerrilla war has to be allowed by the attackers, they have to respect human rights and respect civilians otherwise they just wipe you out.
The Russians invaded Afghanistan, we invaded Vietnam, the nazis invade France, the nazis invade Russia, the British declared martial law in the colonies. In all those instances it was the defender who used guerrilla warfare. When martial law goes down those who chose to fight against it will escape to secluded areas and form insurgent groups where I live there's a shit ton of mountains prime real estate. A d many of the people most adamant about defending gun rights are veterans, active duty solders, law enforcement officers, and even if you aren't one of these modern gun fighting lessons are easily found http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fwHbIvju2c8
That's why I picked the mountains drones can't see you if your in a cave. And a Barrett 50. Cal sniper rifle (legal in most states) will make quick work of drones. Besides I have no doubt a fair bit of the military will be on our side.
The 50. Cal is a tank killer as in it was designed to destroy fucking tanks what would it will do to a drone? Well a lot actually.
You'll be presented as terrorists to the rest of the population nobody would be at your side
That's exactly what the British thought and tried to portray the colonists as it didn't work. Mubarak's government called the protesters terrorists that didn't work we've been calling AlQuida terrorists for years now and they continue to draw recruites. The problem is one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. But what dose this have to do with abolishing "gun free zones"
You are ignoring the part about solders defecting, bringing things with them, we may have rocket launchers brought to us by solders who decide to side with us. But anyway are you basceing you entire argument on "it's useless don't bother" really? I'm shure there where a fare bit of colonists who shared that sentiment back during the revolution look I never said it would be easy but if we don't try what kind of men would we be?
That might not be such a bad idea. A little unorthodox but it could work. Of just shot its engines with a Barrett 50.cal. But like I also said many solders are constitutionalists (peace officers too look up oath keepers) we will have some shit we don't have now.
The links are to videos demonstrating my pointy on classes I tried to link the first one directly but the site is being bitchy with me. Here are some more videos
Wow... that is a very stupid connection. Cocaine is far different. Cocaine should be restricted, because you don't need to protect yourself with cocaine. Guns, on the other hand, will be obtained by criminals no matter the laws, because of the simple fact that they are criminals. They don't follow the laws. Gun laws will only restrict the victims of criminals from protecting themselves. People die now because they can't protect themselves. Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in America, and they also have the most killings by guns in the United States. Is that not proof enough for you?
I dont think aboloshing Gun Free Zones is the answer especially in places like schools as someone else has pointed out Guns in a volatile place like schools is not a good idea and if Guns are allowed it would be hard for someone to differentiate between a Shooter and someone just carrying their Gun for self defence but maybe having armed guards on the premises might work as a deterrent whilst safeguarding peole.
But why hire more personnel when you can just arm teachers? In schools the kids won't be armed obviously you need to be 21 to carry a gun about anyway. But if we arm and train teachers that would be a financially sound way of improving student safety.
...all of them with private "Security & close protection" training which costs about $5000/per person, plus weapons, weekly shootings, compensations for teachers, repeating training every 2 years...
Ah but if the school simply makes training and practice hours mandatory for those who wish to be armed then they can go and find the best concealed carry class and range for them. And of course the cost of ammo will be low too as teacher will only be provided 2 extra mags (they should be allowed to bring more form home if they wanted to though)
alternatively I'm sure your local police or sheriffs department will have no problem training the teachers and letting them use their range they will have to coordinate range days of course but that's not a problem where I live the El Paso county sheriffs office and Colorado Springs police department share a range and it works out for the two of them.
People are bound get offended by some things and when they do they want to go somewhere where they are not.
On the internet that is much easier to do, one must simply log off, but in the real world it's harder to do. If they were completely gone, it'd be impossible to do.
People who want to use their guns can use their guns in the non gun free zones, while the people who don't want to see them, can go the gun free areas. I see it as not limiting rights, but making this a better place for everyone.
No duh. Guns will find a way into gun free zones, just like drugs and alcohol will find a way into the hands of people who aren't allowed to have them.
That doesn't mean we should just lift the law on it.
I guess I just don't know what about guns scares you. Are you afraid of being shot? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being robbed at gunpoint? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being kidnapped by a gunman? Hey, that's illegal. Peace of mind is up to you.
I guess I just don't know what about guns scares you.
It's not that guns scare me. It's that guns can be scary. And people want to be in a place where they can be unafraid. Why should we deprive them of that?
Are you afraid of being shot? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being robbed at gunpoint? Hey, that's illegal. Are you afraid of being kidnapped by a gunman? Hey, that's illegal. Peace of mind is up to you.
Peace of mind is up to the person who wants peace, and for that reason we have the government in place to protect that peace when they can't do it themselves.
It's like this. If guns were legal in school, when any fight happens, and they do, a gun could just as easily have been pulled out and used rather than fists. Why wouldn't you want to decrease the likelihood of that?
It's not about my personal peace that these laws are in place, they are in place because the government is there to protect us. The government makes a rule you cannot shoot people. If you do you are prosecuted. The government makes a rule you can not do crack, if you do you are prosecuted. Why should the government not make a rule that some areas are off limits to guns, where if you bring one, you will be prosecuted?
No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?
No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?
Your entire argument basically ignored mine. Give me an example of a gun being used legally that other people are afraid of. Let me make it as simple as possible for you.
Give me an example of a gun being used legally that other people are afraid of.
Soldier and police use.
I addressed all of your argument with the bolded letters, the ending was just saying how you have your rights, and the people who don't want guns around them should have theirs too.
I addressed all of your argument with the bolded letters
That's why I used the word basically. Everything that bad people can do with guns is illegal in the same way having guns would be illegal in a gun free zone, but that is not enough. Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it.
Soldier and police use
WHAT?!?! You want to have citizens not carry guns, and you consider the only ones you think should have guns as scary? That seems silly to me. This just shows your peace of mind argument is crap.
Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it.
All this shows me is that you feel gun lovers won't be able to handle the freedom of having their guns out in places not designated as gun free. As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns. They just want you to leave your guns out of their gun free zones. It's the same with a home, if you don't want drugs in your home, you don't ban all drugs, you just don't let them in your home. You can take extreme measures to accomplish this, patting people down, xrays, or you can just leave it up to the goodness of people to not bring drugs into your home, or guns into your gun free areas. All the Sandy Hook shooting said to me was, maybe more extreme measure need to be taken to keep gun free zones, gun free.
You want to have citizens not carry guns, and you consider the only ones you think should have guns as scary?
They, with guns, are probably more feared them anyone without a gun. As I said before, i'm not afraid of gun use, I can't personally identify with people who feel guns should not be carried, that's why I'm not for banning guns. I'm for letting people who don't want guns around them, have an area where they can exist without guns. I don't see how that's asking for too much.
That seems silly to me. This just shows your peace of mind argument is crap.
It's not that it's crap, it's that it's based on opinionl and pretty bias, but rules around people that are victimless are usually bias, and they have to start somewhere.
So I repeat, you can have your guns, can the people who don't want guns have a place to not be around them?
The gun lovers are not doing anything illegal. The gun lovers leave their guns at home when in gun free zones. The criminals do not. I do not think the people should have guns in gun free zones. I am saying gun free zones don't work. You have also argued that they don't work. Apparently, I am right.
If they hold onto their guns when guns are illegal they are.
he gun lovers leave their guns at home when in gun free zones.
That's perfectly fine. The lunatics, didn't though, and that's when the cops stop them.
Gun zones are not an exact science, obviously, but they are a solution to regular gun lovers getting upset, and firing off a round in their enemy's face!
Gun zones are not an exact science, obviously, but they are a solution to regular gun lovers getting upset, and firing off a round in their enemy's face!
I think if more people could openly carry guns, that they would use them if a heated discussion ever took place.
AND In schools, where everyone's frontal lobe is under developed, it's more likely to happen faster and more often because no one will be thinking about the later consequences, just the current anger.
In fact, if no one would ever use a gun when they were angry just because it's there, gun violence would not exist. People getting stabbed in the heat of the moment would not exist, throwing chairs, and knocking over tables would not exist.
How do you explain the lack of gun violence in these confrontations in America.
The lack of guns, in these confrontations. Yet if these people had guns, like gangs often do, the fights would not be regular fights they'd be gun battles.
Uh, no one is talking about giving the guns to the students. But, I agree we don't need kids to be armed.
Well what do you know. A school....wait for it... is a gun free zone! If kids could have guns though, when a fight breaks out you'd have to be insane to think they wouldn't use them.
I think arguments would not get heated then
(s)Obviously this must be true, because gun violence never happens.(/s)
This issue is not about giving guns to people who shouldn't have them. And, you think there is a lack of guns in America, see you are crazy.
A school....wait for it...
is where all those kids got shot.
I am going to pull a Quocalimar and make an outrageous claim that has no basis in reason and you will have to admit that guns help:
If we start getting people to turn in their guns, some people will obviously resist. There will be a group of people who keep their guns secretly. The people who don't want guns around will get suspicious. That's when the random murders happen. "Oh, I think I see Bob with a gun, I have to run him over with my car for the safety of the public." An anti gun "task force" of angry citizens will form. Anyone with a gun, or probably has one (wearing a suspicious trench coat) will be beaten until they give up their guns. But, gun violence will be gone, so everyone wins.
How do you explain the lack of gun violence in these confrontations in America.
Was your question. My answer was that these areas with no gun violence have no guns in them. You said I must be crazy, I think a person who thinks that when two people get into a fight that they won't use whatever they have to win, is crazy.
A school....wait for it...
And again you misquoted.
I said a school is a gun free zone. If schools openly allowed guns, then when any fight breaks out, a gun will be used.
The rest is all an attempt to belittle me, great logic by the way, and I don't even see a reason to respond to that.
Also for future reference, if you want to sound intelligent, don't misquote people, it's not helpful to your cause.
I didn't mean to, after all it was a copy paste. I meant that in America it is possible for basically anyone to have a gun on them. People don't shoot people because they know it is wrong to shoot people, and eliminating gun free zones will not change that.
hey won't use whatever they have to win
LET ME SHOUT SO YOU CAN FINALLY HEAR ME. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS ANYWHERE?
And again you misquoted.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE?
gun will be used
You have absolutely no reason to believe this. It doesn't happen anywhere, why would it suddenly start happening. Eliminating gun free zones means arming TEACHERS, not the students. I don't think the teachers will be getting into fights.
The rest is all an attempt to belittle me, great logic by the way, and I don't even see a reason to respond to that.
Only part of it was meant to belittle you. You have no reason to believe that what I said won't happen, if we assume that what you think will happen is possible.
If YOU want to sound intelligent you need to stop using insane impossible situations that would clearly be happening if you were right that they were possible.
I meant that in America it is possible for basically anyone to have a gun on them.
Possible doesn't mean that everyone does, it means that everyone can. Make no mistake, if everyone did have a gun on them, gun violence would increase as any minor dispute, moved to a hot enough temperature could involve the use of their firearm. It's the reason when you fight in a public place, people get slammed onto floors, knocked over chairs, pushed into objects. People, in the heat of the moment, will often do whatever it takes to win the fight.
LET ME SHOUT SO YOU CAN FINALLY HEAR ME. WHY DON'T WE SEE THIS ANYWHERE?
Obviously you're not reading me.
In a fight, whatever can be done to win, will be done.
HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT THE SHOOTINGS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE?
That quote that you answered to, wrong. The shooting happened because one person didn't follow the rule, no one said gun free zones would eliminate gun violence.
Eliminating gun free zones means arming TEACHERS, not the students.
Yes, but if it's a place where anyone can bring a gun, then anyone that can get a license for it, will bring a gun their. The kids are more likely to use them. You think a kid will sit back and be bullied if he can pull a trigger and end it? I think not.
You have no reason to believe that what I said won't happen
Same for you.
you need to stop using insane impossible situations
So gang violence involving guns are insane impossible situations?
that would clearly be happening if you were right that they were possible.
Gang violence does happen. It's very possible. Anyone that has a gun will more than likely use it if a dispute does break out.
Possible doesn't mean that everyone does, it means that everyone can. Make no mistake, if everyone did have a gun on them, gun violence would increase as any minor dispute, moved to a hot enough temperature could involve the use of their firearm. It's the reason when you fight in a public place, people get slammed onto floors, knocked over chairs, pushed into objects. People, in the heat of the moment, will often do whatever it takes to win the fight.
Since when did abolishing gun free zones lead to everyone having a gun.
In a fight, whatever can be done to win, will be done.
Obviously this is not true because we don't see it anywhere.
That quote that you answered to, wrong. The shooting happened because one person didn't follow the rule, no one said gun free zones would eliminate gun violence.
That is my point, gun free zones don't prevent gun violence, therefore there is no reason to have them.
then anyone that can get a license for it
We have restrictions on the age someone can own a gun. Those restrictions will not be lifted, you argument is invalid.
Same for you.
Cool, since it is evident that eliminating gun free zones has no negative side effects, you must admit that taking away guns will cause massive amounts of violence. Seeing as you believe my scenario is fully reasonable.
So gang violence involving guns are insane impossible situations?
You are saying that if we eliminate gun free zones, every man, woman, and child will have a gun on them. I am not exactly sure how you can use gang violence to support your claim.
Anyone that has a gun will more than likely use it if a dispute does break out.
Gang violence usually occurs because gang members are always looking for a fight, it is not some regular dispute that just gets out of hand. Eliminating gun free zones will not cause more gang violence. Police reduce gang violence.
Since when did abolishing gun free zones lead to everyone having a gun.
No one's saying they will, but if everyone does, then all disputes will be handled with them.
Obviously this is not true because we don't see it anywhere.
(1),(2),(3) I could go on all day, just google fights, or go to youtube.
That is my point, gun free zones don't prevent gun violence, therefore there is no reason to have them.
They limit it, if their was no law on drugs anyone that wanted to use, would use.
We have restrictions on the age someone can own a gun. Those restrictions will not be lifted, you argument is invalid.
18? Any 18 year old in high shcool, can buy a gun. WHen they get into a fight, they can use that gun.
You are saying that if we eliminate gun free zones, every man, woman, and child will have a gun on them.
No I'm saying if we eliminate gun free zones, the people who carry their guns naturally will no have no reason not to carry them into these places.
I am not exactly sure how you can use gang violence to support your claim.
Gang violence is supporting the claim that if people have guns, they will use them when altercation arrive.
Gang violence usually occurs because gang members are always looking for a fight, it is not some regular dispute that just gets out of hand.
So you think gangs stand for fighting? No, they are trying to make money. You think gangs like Bloods, and Crips? I think gangs like The Mafia. When they are having a deal with someone, they are not looking for a fight, but if one breaks out, think guns won't be used.
Eliminating gun free zones will not cause more gang violence.
True, gang violence will happen regardless, but eliminating gun free zones will allow more people to openly carry guns in more places, where if a physical argument happens, a gun will be used.
I don't have time to look at those right now, can you just tell me when the guns get pulled out so I can fast forward to that exact time? That would help.
They limit it
It is basically illegal to use a gun pretty much anywhere. How does a less enforceable law prevent more violence?
Any 18 year old in high shcool, can buy a gun
21 for handguns, sorry.
carry them into these places
That is not the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since when did the presence of a gun cause someone to die. It is the USE of the gun. The gun being used is just as illegal, and it would be as illegal as carrying a gun in a gun free zone, until you start detecting for guns.
Gang violence
This is an example of a group of people who want to commit violence so they go get guns, not the other way around. It does not apply to you.
gangs stand for fighting
I am really glad the Mafia will not bring guns into a gun free zone because they respect the law so much.
if a physical argument happens, a gun will be used
You have no reason to believe this is true. Plus, it is safer having people carrying guns currently. Note, those 2 statements are different.
I am saying that if the guns are in people's pockets they will use them! How do you not see that?!
I don't have time to look at those right now, can you just tell me when the guns get pulled out so I can fast forward to that exact time? That would help.
Why on Earth would I put shootings on youtube? These are fights where people do whatever they can to win that is the nature of all fights!
It is basically illegal to use a gun pretty much anywhere. How does a less enforceable law prevent more violence?
You are trying to get them to be legal everywhere, I'm trying to keep what we already have.
21 for handguns, sorry.
Yes, but 18 years old for a shotgun or rifle. That will be used if the situation calls for it!
Since when did the presence of a gun cause someone to die.
If any dispute happens they will use them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am really glad the Mafia will not bring guns into a gun free zone because they respect the law so much.
You completely ignored my point yet again. The gangs like The Mafia are not abiding by the law, that was not the point, the point is that, The Mafia is just trying to do business, but when something goes wrong they have guns, and they use them. Any regular Joe could be just doing business then when something goes wrong, he will use his gun.
You have no reason to believe this is true.
People get stabbed when a knife is nearby during an argument, that is my reason to believe this.
How about when you quote, you quote the entire sentence?
A law for gun free zones is just as effective as the law to not shoot someone, therefore, there is no need for gun free zones as they are currently implemented.
I don't believe your responses deserve to be recognized any more until they start to be based in reality.
If it was legal to shoot someone, you better believe that it would happen more often.
No shit Sherlock, you want a fucking cookie? Were you born this dumb, or does it take practice? This is why guns will never get banned in America, the other side is so fucking dumb, hahahahahahahahaha
misquote them
What's worse, misquoting someone or making incredibly stupid arguments like you do? I did not misquote you or misrepresent what you said. The stuff you said really is as fucking stupid as you thought when you reread it.
Okay we have a point of argument finally. All bold and italics so you'll actually read it.
If it's illegal to shoot people, and shooting people still happens, then why make it illegal? Because it lowers the number of people getting shot. This is the same case with gun free zones.
What's worse, misquoting someone or making incredibly stupid arguments like you do?
I have yet to make a stupid argument they were all scenarios ground perfectly in fact and proof. You have yet to quote me properly, so i'd have to say it's you.
If we make a law that bans lollypops will that lower gun deaths, no.
A law that bans guns in an area will mean that there will be less guns in that area. Period, end of story. Any other implications from that require FACTS. You know, those things you have yet to provide. Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death, therefore you argument is wrong, you lose. The ONLY reason why people aren't gunned down in gun free or not zones is because shooting people is wrong/illegal.
all scenarios ground perfectly in fact and proof
Sorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life. You either made an outrageous statement or went too far and made other things legal that are not on the table.
If we make a law that bans lollypops will that lower gun deaths, no.
Mind me for saying it, but you're an idiot. If their is a law against suckers, their will be less suckers. If there is a law against guns there will be less guns. That is a fact, it's undeniable. Obviously some people will still keep suckers, and some people will keep guns, but their will be less. You even said that if it was legal to shoot people that shootings would increase, why does it not register with you that if it's illegal to shoot people that shooting will decrease?
Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death,
There had never been a gun death there before this big incident, if it the gun free zones did not exist, people would carry them all the time whenever, and if any dispute had happened, the incident would have happened sooner.
Sorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life.
So in real life, people don't do whatever they can to win a fight? That is balderdash.
You are an asshole. It is usually hard for assholes to accept that. So, let it sink in and try not to deny it. You make false statements and accuse people of saying false things when they aren't. Then you act superior if it gets brought up to you.
Mind me for saying it, but you're an idiot. If their is a law against suckers, their will be less suckers. If there is a law against guns there will be less guns. That is a fact, it's undeniable. Obviously some people will still keep suckers, and some people will keep guns, but their will be less. You even said that if it was legal to shoot people that shootings would increase, why does it not register with you that if it's illegal to shoot people that shooting will decrease?
I win , I win , I win. You lose. That was my point you dumb mother fucker. How does someone with your intelligence breath much less make "arguments"? Banning guns in gun free zones will reduce the number of guns in that area, not reduce the number of gun deaths, just like you have said. IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT PEOPLE YOU DUMB PRICK. Banning lollypops and banning guns in special zones has the same effect on whether someone will use a gun. But, we know that if someone else is around with a gun they can stop the shooter.
Newtown is proof that gun free zones DON'T reduce gun death,
There had never been a gun death there before this big incident, if it the gun free zones did not exist, people would carry them all the time whenever, and if any dispute had happened, the incident would have happened sooner.
Sorry Charlie, all of you scenarios were based on your opinion, not what actually happens in real life.
So in real life, people don't do whatever they can to win a fight? That is balderdash.
Balderdash is precisely why I disagree with you. There are less actual deaths, yet you can just say "whatever, I believe in something else for no reason, and I will not justify with any proof" Obviously you didn't say that word for word. It is more of your attitude. I don't want to be accused of misquoting you again.
You are an asshole. It is usually hard for assholes to accept that.
And you are a child. It is hard for children to accept that people have different opinions than them, and they act out and resort to name calling. I should have known by avatar you chose to represent you.
Then you act superior if it gets brought up to you.
You want to quote me correctly on when I was acting superior?
I'm sure I can quote you correctly on when you began acting like a spoiled child.
I win , I win , I win. You lose. That was my point you dumb mother fucker.
My suspicions are confirmed.
All of the rest of that paragraph is slander, i won't quote that. Bear with me, let's go from here.
If lollipops are illegal, not all the lollipops will be gone, but most of them will be. If guns zones exist. Less guns will be in those places.
I don't want to be accused of misquoting you again.
That's the most correct statement you've made since you joined this site. You are misquoting me, by paraphrasing, when you actually don't have an understanding of what i'm saying. Here....is...what...I'm...saying!
If their is a rule against guns in an area, there will be less guns in that area.
If there is no rule about guns in an area, there ill be more guns in that area.
I don't have to accept incredibly fucking stupid remarks, like the ones you presented previously.
You want to quote me correctly on when I was acting superior?
I'm sure I can quote you correctly on when you began acting like a spoiled child.
Apparently I am the only one who thinks they are superior to children. Isn't calling someone a child demonstrating that they are acting superior? I learned something today, I should think twice before I properly quote sociopaths in the future.
slander
Ding, ding, ding, the new dumbest statement in the history of CreateDebate. What prize do we have for him Johnny? Describing my paragraph as slander is insane.
That's the most correct statement you've made since you joined this site. You are misquoting me, by paraphrasing, when you actually don't have an understanding of what i'm saying. Here....is...what...I'm...saying!
If their is a rule against guns in an area, there will be less guns in that area.
If there is no rule about guns in an area, there ill be more guns in that area.
Fuck you again. You are a fucking liar. You said there will be less gun death. If you misquote you, what do you expect from me?
I don't have to accept incredibly fucking stupid remarks, like the ones you presented previously.
Who says you have to accept it? When you become an adult you'll realize people have different views and you'll accept that realization.
Apparently I am the only one who thinks they are superior to children. Isn't calling someone a child demonstrating that they are acting superior?
It's a statement. If I call a white person white, my race does not matter, if they are white. Children, curse, and scream, and overact when faced with difficulty, like you are doing.
Fuck you again. You are a fucking liar. You said there will be less gun death.
If there is less gun usage there will be less gun death.
Who says you have to accept it? When you become an adult you'll realize people have different views and you'll accept that realization.
Not actually an argument.
It's a statement. If I call a white person white, my race does not matter, if they are white. Children, curse, and scream, and overact when faced with difficulty, like you are doing.
Not actually an argument. But, assholes release shit into the environment, so my assessment of you as an asshole is warranted apparently.
If there is less gun usage there will be less gun death.
You didn't take my new vantage point.
Not actually addressing my comments. Not that it is clear that you ever did.
It looks like this is winding down. Probably a good thing, I think I hurt you with my facts, and it appears you only act normal when the other person acts like a child. Also because it was basically the same thing, I would provide logic, facts, and common sense, and you would come back with exaggerations, false claims, idiotic fantasies, and worthless gut feelings.
FALSE. Every time I did you would get crazier. So then I had to stop.
It doesn't accomplish anything to get rid of guns. No lives will be saved (in fact more lives will be lost), and no violence will be prevented. So, what is the point? Removing guns leads to pain and suffering.
Here is the problem we are having. You are saying there will be less guns available. Then you are specifically saying that guns will be used less. Those 2 things mean something totally different. I don't believe the USE of guns will be reduced just because it is a gun free zone. Example, school shootings.
I am saying that having a gun free zone does not guarantee that guns will not be used. I realize that you are not saying it is guaranteed either. I don't think guns will be used less in a gun free zone either because of the examples of guns not being stopped in current gun free zones.
A gun free zone does not ban shooting people. That is already banned. Shooting people is not any more or less banned in a gun free zone. The ONLY thing that is implied by a gun free zone is that it will have less guns. Any other implications that you suggest need to be supported for people to agree with your statement.
I am saying that having a gun free zone does not guarantee that guns will not be used.
True, but no preventive measure 100% guarantees anything. What they do is lower the chances that what they are preventing, will occur.
I don't think guns will be used less in a gun free zone either because of the examples of guns not being stopped in current gun free zones.
With no evidence either way I believe this is a moot point. My logic is from a standpoint that if there is no law preventing something it happens more often, so if there is a law preventing something it must slow it.
A gun free zone does not ban shooting people.
All I asked was did you not agree with me that if there was no law against shooting people, that more people would get shot.
True, but no preventive measure 100% guarantees anything. What they do is lower the chances that what they are preventing, will occur.
Gun free zones don't lead to guns being stopped. Guns wouldn't be used either way. The gun free zones create a target which then causes guns to actually be used.
With no evidence either way
I said you have no evidence. Why are there gun shootings in gun free zones if gun free zones work? That is my evidence that guns will still be used.
All I asked was did you not agree with me that if there was no law against shooting people, that more people would get shot.
My stance was clear on this. I already agreed with you, then I pointed out that it doesn't matter because we are not talking about THAT law. You agreed that I was right that more people die because of gun free zones then are saved.
How do you not see the misquote? You did it deliberately. I thought it was your job to find it. Do you consider yourself a standard hypocrite or a mega hypocrite.
I said: "Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it."
You said: "As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns."
I clearly did not say or imply that you were talking about taking away all guns. Bam! Misquote
Do you consider yourself a standard hypocrite or a mega hypocrite.*
I don't consider myself a hypocrite. A hypocrite says one thing but does another thing. I have always been in favor of finding your own mistakes, while you have always been in favor of finding the mistakes in question and bringing them to the attention of the person making them. I searched for my mistakes found none, and am content, I made none. Now is your turn to do as you said you'd like to do, and find my mistakes to bring to my attention.
I said: "Somehow banning guns is the thing that will finally do it."
You said: "As I said before, no one is trying to take your guns."
You literally said that you think guns should be banned.
Where I responded that we are not trying to take your guns.
I clearly did not say or imply that you were talking about taking away all guns. Bam! Misquote
But you did, so not misquoted.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. i still disagree with the method but it appears to be effective.
The gun free zones are not taking your guns, you still have your legal right to them. Gun free zones just don't want them in their areas.
This is what a ban is (we are talking about just the gun free zone now). Guns are banned in gun free zones. Did I just now say that that means people who support gun free zones want to take away peoples guns? No, I am now and have always only been talking about gun free zones. You misquoted me by implying that I accused you of trying to take all guns.
The whole point of this debate was to discuss whether gun free zones should be done away with. This has nothing to do with trying to get more gun rights. Gun owners are perfectly fine with gun free zones, and as can be seen currently, don't violate this rule because they think it is stupid. You said the only reason to keep gun free zones was because of peace of mind for the people who don't like guns. You also said that they should have their peace of mind even if it kills them and the pro gun people should leave them alone. I tried to point out to you that everything scary about guns is illegal, so adding on the ban is false peace of mind. The rest of your arguments were you blatantly misrepresenting the future if gun free zones are lifted, and misrepresenting that gun owners are carrying their guns illegally. You constantly mentioned how guns would be used if gun free zones are lifted, but couldn't describe why it doesn't happen now in the gun friendly zones. Then you started blatantly using the wrong words and jumping to conclusions with different words.
"It's not about my personal peace that these laws are in place, they are in place because the government is there to protect us."
Wrong, wrong wrong wrong. You have no idea what government is actually intended for do you? It's not to protect us, that's our own personal responsibility.
Government is there to provide a stable structure to society, and provide for relations with foreign societies, be they friendly or hostile.
Furthermore, it is there to protect a person's liberty, or in other words, the free exercise of their natural rights.
Government is NOT intended to be a nanny, nor can it possibly accomplish that role with any efficiency anyway. Individuals are far more capable and effective at doing that. Perhaps you should learn a little bit about US history and government.
'No ones trying to take your guns, why do gun lovers have to take the peace of mind from the people afraid of them?"
Actually they are, and they're on record saying so, and they're not ashamed of it. So don't try to tell me otherwise.
As for peace of mind, why do the anti-gun people have to take OUR Peace of Mind from us? I would sleep far more comfortably if I knew everyone in my nation owned and carried a loaded gun everywhere they went, including myself. Why can't the anti-gun people let me have MY Peace of Mind by arming themselves?
So what your suggesting is that we need more gun free zones, since you think they work so well. Gun free zones only prevent honest law abiding citizens from taking their guns into them. When, in the history of mankind, has anyone ever trusted a criminal to obey laws? Signs, and more signs that create gun free zones do nothing. We can not expect criminals to obey the honor system.
How about we do, since they do not work. The theater in Aurora was a gun free zone, so were all of the schools. They prove not to work, if anything they do the opposite of what they were intended to do.
Let me offer you this scenario, though i already know your answer.
A crazed gunman with no particular target starts shooting people up in a movie theatre, several armed civilians pull out their guns in an attempt to be a hero, no one knows where the 1st shot was fired from so everyone starts firing at anyone they see with a gun.
Does that sound better than ducking and covering, while the madman looks for people, then the police arrive to take him away?
Although that scenario is extremely improbable and highly unlikely, lets assume that it is possible. We will say that 10 people with guns, which includes the original shooter, stand up and start shooting. They will all be shooting at people with guns. The amount of people shot will still be far less than the amount shot if only the original shooter had a gun.
Now for the reality: People with concealed handgun permits have to go through training as well as a background check that is very extensive. They are extremely unlikely to pull out their gun and simply start shooting randomly.
Yes but their are people in the crossfire, and their is also the people the original shooter was shooting, there is also the fact that, just like police brutality, people often abuse their power.
A racist that's carrying a gun legally could take a mass shooting as his opportunity to take out a few members of a group he never liked.
Your arguments are becoming very far-fetched. Remember that the percent of law-abiding concealed carry holders who end up committing crimes of violence are less than 1/10 of .1%.
Strange then, that it's the places in America with the tightest gun control and most amount of gun free zones that have the highest gun criminal rate, whereas places with the least gun control have the lowest overall crime rate.
Please explain this, the facts do not match up with your claims.
Since gun control causes people to kill with guns more, murder being illegal makes people kill more.
So we actually should eliminate gun free zones to cut down on the gun crimes, and also make murder no longer a crime to cut down on those too.
We need to keep gun free zones, and make them more strict. The policy now is like telling people they can't have guns, with no method of ensuring that they won't. In fact that's literally what it is.
"Since gun control causes people to kill with guns more, murder being illegal makes people kill more."
Your argument is faulty, there is no correlation between the two premises, but I'm sure you knew that already.
It's not the fact that Murder is illegal that deters it's practice, it's the likelihood of getting caught and the harsh penalties that will inevitably ensue because of getting caught that factors into the criminal's decision to act or not.
This is precisely why looser/no gun control works as a crime deterrent while gun-free zones are an attractant to criminal activity.
It works as a crime deterrent because the potential punishment for committing crime just rose up to the death penalty, and the potential for getting caught also increases dramatically, because there are more "police" (armed civilians) around that can catch the criminal in the act and stop him (it's easier to catch a fleeing target who's wounded by a gunshot than one who is unharmed).
With gun control, a criminal has a better chance of getting away because there are fewer "police" around that could wound and catch him, and the penalty for getting caught is up to the courts, and most likely NOT the death penalty. Furthermore, in gun free zones, a criminal can wield considerable "force of arms" over the civilians with even the simplest of weapons (knife or pistol). Because the civilians have no method of defending themselves, and the police are way off somewhere else, a criminal can force compliance by threatening their life, and being able to back it up, whereas a place with armed citizens, the firepower is equal or favoring the citizen and the criminal runs the risk of injury or death by attempting to bring to bear his weapon in such an instance.
Hey, I could support that! So long as it's entirely voluntary for both zones, and no services are exclusive to either zone.
I could totally support putting all the people offended by guns in special gun free zones, just for them.
That way when one of the pro-gun people snaps, they can just walk into the no-gun zone, obviously hiding their gun, and have a blast shooting fish in a barrel. :3 Maybe then you guys would realize how utterly useless gun-free zones really are.
It's come to my attention that this debate is virtually the same as the "abortion" or "Gay rights" topic.
More the gay rights oen here's why.
Heterosexual couples can marry, they are not being prevented in any way, yet they want it to be illegal for gays to marry even though I would not affect them in any way.
People that want guns, can still own their guns, they just can't own them in the gun free areas. yet they want the gun free areas gone, even though it would not affect them in any way.
Actually it dose affect us of we should happen to find our selves in one of these "gun free zones" and a shooting occurs while we are unarmed and vulnerable well idd say that would effect us quite a bit.
It's like this. Owning a gun is a responsibility right? Well part of that responsibility is finding where you can own a gun. Once you know it, just remember it and don't go into their places.
Let them be idiots and restrict gun control in their places, while you're safe with your guns in your places.
I'm talking about gun free zones such as schools, malls, movie theaters, ect places that you will inevitably enter at some point in your life. Gun free zones are usually buildings in which fire arms are not permitted not entire housing developments or whatever you where thinking of.
If those were in place then that would make the gun free zone more effective but I see 2 problems with your idea.
1. Do you really want to be patted down just so you can go to class, go to a movie, or go shopping? Yeah that would make the policy enforceable at least but doesn't that seem slightly... Orwellian?
2 will there be armed security on scene to prevent the shooter from pulling his gun and firing on the people doing the patdowns? Or just firing in the line as there will certainly be a line if you must wait while the people ahead of you in the ticket line or the kid who got off the bus before you gets patted down and we all know how busy malls are now consider that you must wait in line to enter to ensure that everyone is safe to enter (make that three problems) and in the cases of the privetly owned properties that chose to be "gun free zones"(movie theaters, malls, restaurants, office buildings, etc) will the armed security work for the owner or the government or a privet security contractor company I mean in the schools they will be government employees obviously but what about in other places? And how will you ensure that every "gun free zone" has these measures in place? (tie in to my last question)
Do you really want to be patted down just so you can go to class, go to a movie, or go shopping?
As I said, I wouldn't want that, but if it's be patted down or potentially shot by a hero with a gun, I'll take the light pats anyday.
will there be armed security on scene to prevent the shooter from pulling his gun and firing on the people doing the patdowns?
Most security for places already have weapons. The local high school near where I live have two armed officers.
I'd copy paste the rest but you know it all
The malls would present a problem, but what's to say the people that wanted to shoot up the place will be capped by any of the gun toting civilians that pop up. What if the first person gunned down is the only person with a gun that could have saved the people, now the law of it being a gun free zone or not doesn't matter, but the people never got that peace of mind that gun free zones should exist, and they are now vying to get all guns banned rather than some areas gun free.
what if the first person to get capped is the only one with a gun well first off if you want to play the "what if" game than what if its the shooter that gets shot first?. And second think of all the people in a mall or movie theater or school, restaurant, office building, etc what are the odds given how many gun owners there are in America and how Many of them have concealed carry licenses and practice concealed carry that only one man would be armed. Besides you never answered my question about security in privately owned facility's.
as to your point about the security in your local high school it's good to know that there are armed personnel standing by but as I've said idd rather the teachers be armed and trained so the officers can go back out on the streets where they are most needed.
And as to your first point. You may be fine with being patted down god knows how many different times while running errands or any time you want to take your girl or kid to a movie. But it would ware thin on me. And your more likely to get shot by the man firing indiscriminately than you are to be shot by the man aiming specifically at the man who is firing indiscriminately potentially getting shot by a hero with a gun don't think you got that clever remark past me. Or where you calling mass shooters heroes? I hope not.
Who'd shoot the shooter? A person who was carrying their gun in the no gun zone, that person would then be, the shooter, and the issue starts over.
what are the odds
It was just a hypothetical, but then there's the issue of one shooter, versus tons of 'heroes'. All the vigilantes trying to shoot that one shooter, and the one shooter not caring about any life just killing, while all the vigilantes are trying to kill one person, not caring who gets in their way, and not caring about the paperwork they'll have to take care of after killing any number of people to get to the shooter. Then the police finally show, and they now don't know who's the shooter and who's a vigilante.
Besides you never answered my question about security in privately owned facility's.
I'll address that after this, in a clarification, sorry.
I've said idd rather the teachers be armed and trained
This is a brand new element that I'm perfectly in favor of. I'd much rather trained personnel with guns that random Joes.
But it would ware thin on me
Would it wear thin with the first scenario, up above, that I mentioned?
potentially getting shot by a hero with a gun
By that I mean, the hero with a gun is the guy trying to fire at the criminal with a gun, and misses.
Or where you calling mass shooters heroes? I hope not.
Many gun owners often train extensively with their firearms the scene you described is not likely. Most gun owners are pretty damn accurate otherwise what's the point of buying the gun in the first place. Here's how it would play out gun man walks in, gunman pulls gun, Guzman shots 1 person, gunman gets lite up like the New York Christmas tree by 3 well practiced concealed carrying citizens.
Okay that is if they have security of course there will be those who will think all this is unnessisary and not implement it then we are back at square one. I mean you could put government guards in there but that would be a logistical nightmare that would require you to know where every "gun free zone" in the nation is located and a massive tax hike (potential political suicide) so privet security is impossible to enforce and government security would be a complete nightmare to implement and likely result in an utter cock up. Check mate thanks for playing.
Interestingly Warrior is Anti Gay Marriage and Anti Abortion but hates the thought of Gun Restrictions being in place because that would be restricting his rights.
He wants to suppress the rights of others whilst keeping his.
This goes beyond just the constitutional right to bare arms (neither gay marriage nor abortion are mentioned in the bill or rights therefor they are not rights) its about safety. Safety that won't require more taxes of wire tapping an wont require good honest citizens to be disarmed.
Abortion and Gay marriage might not be mentioned specifically but there is mention of all people being treated equally so not treating Homosexuals and Heterosexuals equally is denying them their constitutional rights, womens right to vote is not specifically mentioned in the constitution would you take that away from them?
Also you think teachers need to be armed as opposed to armed guards at schools but what about teachers who dont want to be armed? Would you take away their right to choose and insist that they are armed to make life "safer"
To your first question it is not a right for heterosexual couples to get married its just an excepted practice and NPR is it a right for homosexuals to bet married. Secondly if a teacher dose not want to be armed so se can defend her students then I purpose an armed security guard be hired for just her class and a portion of his salary be cut from the teachers salary since she forced the school (and subsequently the tax payers) to pay for this particular expense so she can shoulder some of the burden.
Heterosexual marriage is legally recognised, Homosexual marriage is not ergo Homosexuals are not being treated equally to Heterosexuals which is unconstitutional.
You think that teachers should help pay for an armed guard if they do not want to be armed, so another persons rights you would trample over. How about we make gun owners pay the medical bills and funerals of everyone who is injured or killed when a gun is used irresponsibly or illegally?
My reason for making the teacher pay for the guard is because the guard was hired as a direct consequence of her decision. How dose me bieing a gun owner make me directly responsible for every death by firearm? It best to avoid strawman arguments they make you look stupid. And the bill of rights says nothing about unequal treatment being unconstitutional (remember slavery was legal back when it was wrighten) the preamble dose but that's not where our rights are listed nice try though.
The Constitution says every man should be treated equally just because that was ignored for many years doesn't mean the Hypocrisy has to continue, if it does it makes the whole thing worthless.
I was trying to show Warrior that his rights as Gun owner should not suoercede those of other people, according to him the only rights Americans are allowed are those that are specifically mentioned in the Constitution so Gun ownership is a yes but equal rights for others is a no.
This is getting interesting but I think I've taken this debate too far off topic I will create a new one where the rights of American Citizens and ammendments to the bill and wether they are good or bad can be debated.
I apologise for taking this debate so far off topic
My thought exactly. Ashman stay on topic. This debate has nothing do with gay marriage and the fact that the bill of rights says nothing about it. The topic is should we abolish gun free zones
Could you please quote and specify where in the constitution it says that all people must be treated equally? I've read it numerous times and have never found such a phrase.
Furthermore, marriage is not a constitutional right, it is a legal privilege.
Women's right to vote actually IS specified in the constitution, because until it was, they were not permitted such a privilege. I think you need to go back to your US history class.
As for teachers needing to be armed. I posit to them this choice. Either be armed, trained, and willing to defend their students, or not be hired in the first place. They have the right to choose to accept the job, with all the conditions enumerated, or to decline and find some other job. They do not however, have a right to have that job, particularly if they disagree with the enumerated conditions.
14th ammendment equality clause and the original constitution as written by the founders states that all men are created equally with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that was from a quick google search. I think your the one who needs to go back to class.
Please point out to me where in a teachers contract it says they must be armed also new contracts could only apply to new teachers what about the ones already employed who are opposed to being armed, you cant sack them because that would be unfair dismissal.
The Original Constitution says that? What original? You mean the Articles of Confederation? I'm pretty sure they don't. And if you mean the US Constitution, you are just as equally incorrect. Don't try to lecture me on the US Constitution, I have a copy of it right right next to me on my Desk.
You are absolutely ignorant if you think the Constitution said that, and proved it when you state so matter-of-factly that you used google to find this out. The Document that actually says that is "The Declaration of Independence," Which I also have a copy of on my desk.
The 14th amendment furthermore also states nothing of the sort relating to equal treatment, and you would know that if you had actually read what it says. It simply states that all people born or naturalized in the United States are citizens and afforded equal PROTECTION by the law and shall not have such protections abridged. That's not equal treatment.
So, you still haven't answered my question. I asked specifically where in the Constitution is states that "all people must be TREATED equally."
Being treated equally and being created equally, are two very different things. As is being treated equally and having equal protection under the law, and if you don't understand that, I'm afraid you might need to go back to English class.
As for teachers contract, I can point to no such thing, because we were discussing a hypothetical situation, not actual reality. However, in My State, we have "right to work" protection, which means either party of the job contract can sever the contract at any time for whatever reason they desire. There's no such thing as unfair dismissal.
In the hypothetical situation we are discussing, and in real life of course, all parties under contract would have provisions made into their contract stating that new policies would require a re-negotiation of the contract. So, obviously, when the school changes their policies, they offer the teachers re-negotiation under a new contract, otherwise if they disagreed with the new contract after negotiation, they would be free to leave employment.
Apologies, I see now that you're from the UK, so I can't expect you to have as capable an understanding of the US Constitution as an American Citizen should. I'm sorry for the mistake. However, my point still stands.
Equal treatment under law how does that not mean not having equal rights or not being treated equally, please explain as I am obviously of a lower intellect as you
Equal Protection, PROTECTION, under the law. Not equal treatment. That's the difference.
Equal protection means that the laws are not unfavorably skewed to exclude you. What is critical to understand about the US Constitution is that it is intended to protect the natural rights inherently attributed to all people in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and property (the pursuit of happiness in attaining and using material goods and services).
This then means, in the context of equal protection, that all citizens of the US will be equally protected in their ability to exercise these 3 rights and all others subsequent to them, without coercion or interference by government.
And what is necessary to accomplish that, is to ensure these rights can not be taken away except through the due process of law, which accounts for many of the Rights listed in the Bill of Rights, forbidding from government power to cut around due process (rights of the accused), infringe on liberty (freedom of religion and speech), and remain subject to the Sovereign People (right to bear arms)
Equal protection then means that the due process of law shall not be altered for any party, nor shall the natural liberties people enjoy be infringed. In historical context, the 14th amendment came about because certain states were intentionally making requirements to vote which the newly freed previously enslaved negro could not possibly meet, such as high taxes and literacy tests. Thus denying them of their right as a citizen to vote, without due process. The negro was guilty of nothing but being different, and yet being denied their rights, hence, equal protection of rights granted by the 14th.
Equal TREATMENT on the other hand, as you seemed to imply earlier, was to be mandated for everyone to practice. Everyone must be treated the same and granted the exact same things. No one can own more property than another, groups can not be taxed at different rates, subsidies must apply to all industries and all businesses in those industries, females must be able to work all jobs men can work, bathrooms can not discriminate by gender, all people must have a driver's license, etc. stuff like that.
The example you used: gay marriage (ignoring the complete misnomer there):
You said it is not equal treatment to prevent gays from being married.
Besides the fact that marriage is not a right in the first place and thereby not subject to equal protection, it already applies equally to all citizens:
Any unmarried male is permitted to marry any unmarried female, not too closely related by blood, or outside of statutory age limits, and any unmarried female is permitted to marry any unmarried male, within those same restrictions.
This does not prohibit gays from marrying at all. Any gay is perfectly legally permitted to marry any member of their opposite gender, just as equally as straight men and women are. The law makes no exceptions except statute age, blood relation, and current marital status. Blacks, whites, gays, straights, men, women, etc, they're all free to marry their opposite gender.
It is obvious to me now that I was causing confusion with my choice of words, I meant equal rights by treatment I meant no one should be getting preferential treatment due to gender, sexuality, colour etc, I didn't mean everyone should use the same kazy and no one should be allowed to own more stuff than another, what do you think I am some kinda Commie? :)
Democrat Liberal Socialist actually, based upon your views for gun control, gay "marital" unions, and your choice of words. As well as your complete ignorance of the US Constitution :P
Yes, I came to the realization that this might have been a misunderstanding as I tried to explain the differences. Yes, the US Constitution affords equal rights to every natural born, or naturalized citizen, and as such, they are treated equally under the law (or supposed to be anyway).
Some laws are unfair, however, the majority of them don't explicitly infringe on the natural rights of We the People, so they're perfectly acceptable legally. Anything that is a legal benefit is not a right however, and does not apply under equal application, protection, or treatment of the law.
But, perhaps we should get back to gun control now...
The more i've pondered guns I can see that would be impossible to ban Guns in America and I am not totally anti guns but I do believe there should be stricter laws on ownership/background checks or the existing ones should be made stricter or be better enforced but if people are refused a gun they should be given the reasons why and be able to appeal. This might hopefully keep legal weapons out of the hands of idiots and the dangerous and prevent school shootings at least those done by the owners of legal weapons.
I think the way to get workable laws in place is if sensible gun owners helped with coming up with sensible laws instead of knee jerk opposition to anything that anyone suggests and to be honest some of the idiots speaking up in defence of guns dont help the gun owners cause, one of the best things the NRA did was cut its ties with Ted Nugent but some of the stuff he was coming out with just made him look like a loon, to an outsider you see that and think if thats the best person they could come up with for a spokesperson the rest must be really nuts.
I should certainly hope it would be possible, but I'm not going to put anything past these anti-gun proponents, because they are not going to stop if they aren't made to. To them, everything is a step towards total prohibition and confiscation of all guns. Once they have this step, because it obviously won't work, they'll demand another step, more restrictive than the last, and then another, until ultimately guns are banned entirely, gun production is relegated solely to the military, and every loose gun in the hands of a civilian that can be found is confiscated (or "bought" by the government). Because the ultimate goal here is power, and control, through government, over the people. Some of the lesser proponents might just be misguided or brainwashed into thinking it'll be good for reducing crime, but the ones with legislative power working for gun control, are in it for the control. That's all government has ever been about and will ever be since it's formation, more and more control, until it has absolute control. That is why We are explicitly granted the protection from infringement on gun possession by the second amendment. Once a nation is disarmed, it is only a matter of time before they will be ruled by a supreme dictator and an unmatchable army.
The only gun control I would support would be mandatory gun training, and prohibition for felons and the clinically insane.
Background checks won't help much, because no known criminal would attempt to acquire a gun legally (they would either steal someone else's legally acquired gun, or buy off a black market), and most spontaneous gun crime is committed by people who have not not committed a previous offense.
Sensible laws according to whom? IMO, anything that even remotely infringes on my right to own, and carry on my person (keep and bear), any arm of military strength (militia required for a free state) is unconstitutional, and should therefore be stopped. We've already made numerous concessions to the anti-gun crowd, concessions that ought not to be made, and yet they keep requiring more and more. We know what they're trying for (to completely disarm us), IMO, it's time to refuse to compromise any further the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
Of course not! Generally, it should ban the sale of guns to the population! Because so many cases of mass murder. The most recent occurred in Belgorod, where 10 people were killed.
