CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
The constitution, says We have the right to bear arms. you may say "its fine to own a gun, just not a fucking AR-15" or something like that. The constitution also states.... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, taking the assault weapons is taking away our well armed militia. therefore it is against the conswtitution.
I agree but reserve my right to dispute on Constitutional grounds.
First I will start by saying the right to own a fire-arm comes directly from the United States Constitution as granted by introduction of fact in the preamble. Fire-arms are a common defense to the general welfare. The Second amendment though ratified by states, none of those states has ever set any fact to argue that one piont.
Second we are not simply securing a freedom we are mandated by constitution to set forth liberty along a path of happiness. Freedom describes both a lack of self-value and cost and is applied only to word as state, this which are a line of meaning by argument made between two points.
Third taking away a fire-arm is not against the United States Constitution. To be clear it is a threat made to take away personal property without just, or fair compensation that is at question, and illegal by law. As it is being described as a punishment to provide safety, while in fact it was the lack of common defense which was proven to be the cause of death to those who file grievance against United States Constitution.
We will look closely at history. China moved to outlaw martial arts. It failed.
Japan moved to outlaw swards. It failed.
United States moved to outlaw fire=arms. It failed.
The common basic principle here is that each of these things is a cultures common defense. While law may be describe as a common defense to the general welfare. The complexity of some crimes over others to prove inside an impartial court of law, may falsely drive the public into legislation of laws that are criminal for taxation is collect with the hopes of spending in other areas and not complex and hard to establish cases of judicial separation.
Just so you're aware, actual assault rifles- which have a standard, clear definition as determined by the Department of Defense- are already illegal. 'Assault weapons' are a made up term by politicians looking to manipulate you into thinking a particular rifle is more dangerous than it actually is by making it sound scary. None of them can even agree on what it even means, besides all AR15s.
First, come to a definition of the term 'assault weapon' that everyone agrees on, that isn't based on what Hollywood tells you is dangerous, and that doesn't simply equate to 'all of the guns with the features I subjectively and arbitrarily think look scary'. Standardize your definition, and then I'll tell you why you're wrong.
No one in their right mind would want to own an assault ''TYPE'' rifle.
If we follow the lunatic logic of those who claim that the constitution protects their right to own such weapons to its natural conclusion then the average citizen would have a right to own rocket propelled grenade launchers, heavy machine guns and heat seeking missiles.
Target shooting or hunting doesn't require assault ''TYPE'' rifles, nor does personal protection.
The law needs to be clearly defined so the shitheads cannot walk through the loopholes with their boots on.
Didn't you know there's a whole world of knowledge on Google's search Engine?
When you've carried out your own research on the difference between the two classifications of weaponry you could start on an amazing voyage of learning.
I asked because there are as many definitions as there are opinions. Which is to say there isn’t a clear definition. But there is a fairly consistent problem with all the various opinions on what constitutes an assault style weapon. Namely that it relies on aesthetics rather than functionality. There are small game .22 rifles that look scary enough for some to call them assault style.
You can get back to me after you look up your opinion.
Okay, when I checked the issue out a few months ago an AR 15, as for one example, was described as an assault type rifle by the experts, all of whom, in their own way, also explained that the initials A R did not stand for Assault Rifle.
Anyway, I'm not an authority on weaponry and rely on those who are specialists in their field to guide me.
I'm not an authority on weaponry and rely on those who are specialists in their field to guide me.
Apparently only if the specialist matches your bias. Firearms specialists don’t tend to be for a ban on assault style weapons.
Here’s why.
No one knows what an assault style rifle is, but those concerned agree that the AR-15 is an example. An example is not a definition. A ban on assault style weapons becomes problematic because it would have to be based on a definition, which we don’t have. All attempts at a definition fail because the going concern is aesthetics, which cannot make a weapon more dangerous. When the going concern is function, you are looking at an overly broad gun ban, since assault style weapons function the same as other weapons.
When targeting harmless aesthetics, the harmful function is retained by other non-assault style weapons, making a ban meaningless unless it is the broad gun grab mentioned earlier. This is why you have 2A advocates, who may not particularly care about the AR, ready to counter attempts to ban assault style weapons.
Does the average American need to be part of a militia? I think not. The amendment is meant to protect against tyrannical governments, which some would argue we already have. Now, if we were to "amend" the 2nd Amendment to make it "modern-friendly", how would we protect ourselves from a tyrannical government? With 6-shooters and 9mms? Hunting rifles and Airsoft guns?
Does the average American need to be part of a militia? I think not.
Yes I agree
The amendment is meant to protect against tyrannical governments, which some would argue we already have.
Some Americans really need to study what a tyrannical government is really like
Now, if we were to "amend" the 2nd Amendment to make it "modern-friendly", how would we protect ourselves from a tyrannical government?
You couldn’t protect yourselves against the might of the American military , do you honestly think unorganized American people would be any match at all for the military ?
When the the pro-gun lobby deem that the use of the word in the 2nd amendment really meant anyone who wished to own a firearm of any type.
Endeavouring to rationalize the nation's ownership of millions of lethal firearms by trying to instill dread by presenting the fanciful notion of the altogether groundless menace of a tyrannical government as a reason is nothing more than a graphic illustration of the weakness of the N.R.A's argument.
It’s constantly baffles me that Americans who seem to be one of the most patriotic nations in the world by a fair majority constantly bring up this absurd tyrannical government argument as a justification for their assertions regarding guns
I guess in the absence of any logical arguments they are forced to invent the spectre of some imaginary peril which will suddenly manifest itself in the event of stricter gun controls being introduced.
Good, at least we found some form of common ground.
Some Americans really need to study what a tyrannical government is really like
Tyrannical: "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"
Again, some would argue we already have one. I don't myself, though.
You couldn’t protect yourselves against the might of the American military , do you honestly think unorganized American people would be any match at all for the military ?
Why would we be unorganized? We would literally have to be organized to even stand a chance. Also, this sounds eerily similar to the late 1700s when the colonists were fighting the regulars; "Do you honestly think unorganized colonists could be any match for the best military in the world?" What happened there? As far as I can tell, history repeats itself if not tended to.
Tyrannical: "exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way"
Yes
Again, some would argue we already have one. I don't myself, though.
They need to spend a month in North Korea just to see how a tyrannical government goes about its business
Why would we be unorganized?
So you’re saying those who see the government as tyrannical at the moment are organized and ready to go ?
Also a sizable amount of Americans do not perceive the government as tyrannical and there you have your first division between the population , which would not auger well for any future encounters unless of course all the population agreed the government was tyrannical
We would literally have to be organized to even stand a chance.
Yes. So if happened tomorrow yous wouldn’t stand a chance you will agree
Also, this sounds eerily similar to the late 1700s when the colonists were fighting the regulars; "
Vast difference in the technology and weapons available to the military now
Do you honestly think unorganized colonists could be any match for the best military in the world?
They certainly were not the best military in the world by a long shot , they’re up there now though
" What happened there? As far as I can tell, history repeats itself if not tended to.
They need to spend a month in North Korea just to see how a tyrannical government goes about its business
I agree that calling the current U.S. government tyrannical is going a bit overboard.
So you're saying those who see the government as tyrannical at the moment are organized and ready to go ?
Small groups, possibly.
Also a sizable amount of Americans do not perceive the government as tyrannical
I didn't say even a decent portion of the population saw their government this way, I was simply stating that some people do.
Vast difference in the technology and weapons available to the military now.
Okay, but can't you see where I'm coming from? The military now, like Britain's in 1776, has better weapons than we can manage. But, we still won the revolution because we had a cause. If enough people had a cause, they could most likely beat back the American military.
They certainly were not the best military in the world by a long shot
So, who had the best military at the time of the Revolutionary War?
Highly unlikely
I disagree. Right now, a tyrannical government could very well pop up, with all of the ANTIFA and alt-right movements across the U.S.
I’m not prepared to go down this road yet again as I’ve done it several times before and it leads nowhere , just one question if you claim to have a right to bear arms do you think there should be limitations on the type of arms you are allowed to bear?
do you think there should be limitations on the type of arms you are allowed to bear?
Definitely, as long as they're reasonable. But things like "assault weapon bans" are ridiculous because they limit the abilities of an American citizen to effectively protect themselves from others as well as the government.
But things like "assault weapon bans" are ridiculous because they limit the abilities of an American citizen to effectively protect themselves from others as well as the government.
What a truly frightening country the U S has become that the average citizen requires an assault weapon to protect himself from his neighbours and government
Fair point. By reasonable, I mean things like saying you can't own nukes.
What a truly frightening country the U S has become that the average citizen requires an assault weapon to protect himself from his neighbours and government
Maybe not from my neighbors, but like you've said, we as a country can't stand up to a tyrannical government without "special help", so "assault weapons" are necessary to protect yourself from the government.
Fair point. By reasonable, I mean things like saying you can't own nukes.
But why shouldn’t you own nukes a tyrannical government would have them
Maybe not from my neighbors, but like you've said, we as a country can't stand up to a tyrannical government without "special help", so "assault weapons" are necessary to protect yourself from the government.
It seems to be a peculiarly American mindset this fear of a tyrannical government
Of course they would. However, the scale of nuclear weaponry has increased massively since the 40s and 50s and I don't think anyone is crazy or stupid enough to put down a rebellion by destroying a fifth of their own country.
Of course they would. However, the scale of nuclear weaponry has increased massively since the 40s and 50s and I don't think anyone is crazy or stupid enough to put down a rebellion by destroying a fifth of their own country.
But the government could do it on the population , Stalin murdered millions of his own people and that before Russia had nukes
But you did say Maybe not from my neighbors, but like you've said, we as a country can't stand up to a tyrannical government without "special help", so "assault weapons" are necessary to protect yourself
Now you’re asking me why would a tyrannical government want to be on a shit list ???
People running tyrannical governments typically want to stay in power. How would they do that if they had the UN on their ass waiting to kick them out of office?
Did you ever look at the U N blacklisted countries ?
Do you honestly think the U N kick rulers if tyrannical governments out of office ?
If it was the case why do you make the case American citizens need to bear army in case of a tyrannical government taking power?
Surely the U N would step in according to what you believe and kick them out of office , or failing that the government of the US could never be tyrannical because of fear of U N intervention, this is your contention after all so why the fear of a hostile US government ever holding sway ?
so why the fear of a hostile US government ever holding sway ?
I see it as a WWI Germany situation, where the country is in such a bad state in every sense that they'll let a madman into some form of office, and said madman will rise through the ranks and do some not-so-good things to and for the country. So, in the case that that happens, a coup may be necessary. And who can stage a coup without guns?
We would need guns to put an end to the problem quickly. Like I said, they wouldn't use nukes on any rebels. This is because rebels would most likely be headquartered in very economically important locations, like L.A. and NYC and possibly even the capital. It would most likely be similar to the American Revolution, with foreign nations coming in to help at some point.
But you stated several times ......People running tyrannical governments typically want to stay in power. How would they do that if they had the UN on their ass waiting to kick them out of office?
So you need guns to halt a tyrannical government that according to your assertions cannot stay in power because of what the UN may do to them ???
We would need guns to put an end to the problem quickly.
So you admit tyrannical governments would not be stopped by the UN
It would most likely be similar to the American Revolution, with foreign nations coming in to help at some point.
Again you just stated you need guns to end the problem quickly further admitting you do not believe the UN would do anything , now you admit it would be like the American revolution, hows that ending the problem quickly ?
No offence taken Outlaw , Amarel a fellow American said assault weapons are banned in the U S , what does the American government deem an assault wespon
I don't know what an Assault Weapon is to be honest with you. In my opinion it is nothing more than a talking point of the American Corrupt Media and Amarel may be a Water Carrier for that narrative.
Here is what is hilarious Government Officials want to tell the lemming about Assault Weapons as they have a Security Force armed with those scary weapons that should be banned and done away with.
If only someone can take all the terrorist, citizens, police, government's firearms and throw all of it in the acid then gun deaths will be zero but yeah, restrictions may do.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
So you tell me with each child dying from a drunk driver, why the Left is not all over the media pretending to be outraged over these innocent children's deaths? Do you have any idea how many more children are killed by drunk drivers than by guns in schools?
Where is the outrage and demand for alcohol regulations and back ground checks in public bars, nightclubs, etc.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why won't the Left propose laws mandating back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if your goal is to save lives with all your anti Gun rhetoric, you should be over joyed to save many thousands more lives by having background checks on people before buying alcohol in public places.
Do you have any idea how many times repeat DWI drivers continue to drink and drive? Approximately 40% of drunk drivers are repeat offenders! They drive even when their licenses are revoked!
The only way to prevent this is to do a background check before they buy that weapon of death.....ALCOHOL!
Wait, what you say? You say you don't want to be inconvenienced by background checks when buying alcohol? You say you are a law abiding citizen who would never drink and drive?
You say you don't want to pay more for alcohol to pay for those background checks for past DWI drivers?
I THOUGHT YOUR GOAL WAS TO SAVE LIVES? You expect law abiding citizens to pay more and put up with all the inconvenience from your anti gun legislation, but when it comes to your alcohol...... HANDS OFF?
A drunk driver behind the wheels of a car happens millions of times more often than some lunatic with a gun! The odds of you or your loved one being killed by a drunk driver is far higher than the odds of being shot at a concert or Church.
You are hypocrites and total jokes. You prove you could not care less about saving lives. Your final goal is to take our guns.
You always spew your ludicrous reasoning why only guns should be singled out to save lives. A police state is just fine as long as it only controls one particular weapon of death..... the gun.
You say we already have alcohol restrictions? Yes, and we already have gun restrictions. You can't buy a gun under age, the same as alcohol. We can't shoot people, you can't hunt near public places and you can not drink and drive. BUT PEOPLE STILL DO IT!
IT'S NOT THE WEAPON OF CHOICE, BUT THE PERSON BEHIND THAT WEAPON. Use the brain God gave you and start addressing why people grow up to be criminals, or become irresponsible drinkers who have no problem drinking and driving.
Start addressing the core problem instead of their weapon of choice.
basically any automatic weapon is considered an assault weapon, if we are attacked my a strong army, what the hell are pistols and rifles gonna do to them? huh? very little. So all you cry babies who think we don't have the right to assault weapons? lets see what you say when you need to defend yourself against a heavily armed assailant. Gonna cry and beg for mercy? probably.
Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.
Isn't the sole purpose of civilians having weapons self defense? In which case I think it's wise only to have guns which strictly operate on non fatal rounds.
Yep you can bet Barack Obama's security force have non fatal rounds LMMFAO
Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”. Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.
For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.
Guns don’t fire non-lethal rounds. To avoid lawsuit for pretending rubber billets (and the like) are non-lethal, agencies that use them call them “less lethal”.
That is my suggestion, make guns which are specifically for self defense and not fatal. I mean, bit of manipulation of tech could restrict guns from firing fatal ammo.
Furthermore those that use them have lethal backup because less lethal ammo isn’t as effective.
when the objective is self defense, you don't have to kill anyone. 2-3 shots should easily put anyone on the floor. I mean, such rounds are made for that very specific purpose, it doesn't make sense to call it less effective.
For gun owners, it makes sense to not choose ammo of variable lethality and effectiveness.
It should for the law which is why they should make one such. Cause by giving people fatal guns you literally are giving the person the ability to use it to kill someone and possibly add complications to determining the actual position and state of the event.
They make guns that are specifically non-fatal. They are called paint ball and air soft. No one uses them for self defense because they won’t effectively defend you. To make rounds that will defend you, you have to increase lethality, which is what less lethal rounds do. Even so, less lethal rounds are not as effect at stopping a threat as are regular rounds. To suggest that they should make ammo that is just as effective but not lethal is fine, but then to suggest a law requiring these currently non-existent rounds is not fine.
If you don’t want the responsibility of possibly killing someone in self defense, then don’t carry a gun, learn to punch well, learn to kick well, or workout for strength. Carry pepper spray.
They make guns that are specifically non-fatal. They are called paint ball and air soft.
I was talking about guns that are meant for self defense, not playtime guns. Even toy guns are non fatal but that clearly isn't my point.
Even so, less lethal rounds are not as effect at stopping a threat as are regular rounds
you're telling that rounds made for a specific purpose doesn't serve that purpose unless, by stopping a threat you mean killing/ almost killing the threat.
To suggest that they should make ammo that is just as effective but not lethal is fine, but then to suggest a law requiring these currently non-existent rounds is not fine.
Such rounds are used by law enforcement. And they sure as hell work.
If you don’t want the responsibility of possibly killing someone in self defense, then don’t carry a gun, learn to punch well, learn to kick well, or workout for strength. Carry pepper spray.
Or you could find a better solution like hiding and calling cops, but clearly that's not the point of debate here.
Such rounds are used by law enforcement. And they sure as hell work.
I already referred to law enforcement when I talked about agencies that use non-traditional rounds. Cops know there is no such thing as a non-lethal round. That’s why they call them less lethal rounds. Cops know that less lethal rounds are far less effective. That’s why they have other cops standing by with traditional ammo loaded guns at the ready. If all works out for the cops, the target is subdued without being killed. But sometimes the target is killed by the less lethal round. Sometimes the less lethal round isn’t effective and the target is killed by a regular round. Cops aren’t going to approach a lethal situation without a lethal force option.
Or you could find a better solution like hiding and calling cops, but clearly that's not the point of debate here
If you don’t have to fight, don’t fight. If you don’t have to shoot, don’t shoot. But if you do have to shoot, then the threat is unavoidable and lethal, so you better not bring bean bags to the shootout.
That’s why they call them less lethal rounds. Cops know that less lethal rounds are far less effective.
Effectiveness is a measure of how well something works to what it was made for. The less lethal rounds are not meant to be lethal. they're meant to put down the attacker which they do pretty well.
Cops aren’t going to approach a lethal situation without a lethal force option.
I never said they would approach a lethal situation without a lethal option. I said they use less lethal rounds. What it implies is that less lethal rounds are used when they are to be used. If cops can use them to capture criminals, it sure does pretty well against an attacker where your need of the hour is self defence.
If you don’t have to fight, don’t fight. If you don’t have to shoot, don’t shoot. But if you do have to shoot, then the threat is unavoidable and lethal, so you better not bring bean bags to the shootout.
oh sure, let me bring in a bloody rpg and kill some ppl who aren't even involved. After all, it's self defence isn't it?
Psychopathic shootouts wouldn't do half as much damage to ppl if regular rounds were not allowed for civilian use. ppl would be hurt but not killed.
And to make it clear, I'm strictly talking about self defence situations, not some gang war out on the streets.
Inn glad you’ve switched to using the term “less lethal rounds” as opposed to “non-lethal rounds”, which don’t exist.
Effectiveness is a measure of how well something works to what it was made for. The less lethal rounds are not meant to be lethal. they're meant to put down the attacker which they do pretty well
All ammunition, including less lethal ammunition, is used to stop the threat. Less lethal rounds can do pretty well, when the conditions are right and they are utilized properly. But pretty well isn’t good enough in a potentially lethal encounter. Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.
I never said they would approach a lethal situation without a lethal option. I said they use less lethal rounds. What it implies is that less lethal rounds are used when they are to be used.
My point about the lethal option is that less lethal rounds are a luxury which is only available because someone else is right there with lethal force protection. Cops have less lethal weapons, but they wouldn’t walk around alone with only that option. Neither should anyone in a lethal encounter.
oh sure, let me bring in a bloody rpg and kill some ppl who aren't even involved. After all, it's self defence isn't it?
Do you really think that mischarecterization of my position even looks like it holds water? A handgun is not an RPG. Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.
Psychopathic shootouts wouldn't do half as much damage to ppl if regular rounds were not allowed for civilian use. ppl would be hurt but not killed
At least the aggressor may not be killed. Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death. If it weren’t the case, why stop with civilians? Why not make all cops carry only less lethal rounds? Nevermind, I’ve already answered this.
Inn glad you’ve switched to using the term “less lethal rounds” as opposed to “non-lethal rounds”
non fatal is perfect.
All ammunition, including less lethal ammunition, is used to stop the threat.
A 50 caliber is used to kill not stop.
Less lethal rounds can do pretty well, when the conditions are right and they are utilized properly. But pretty well isn’t good enough in a potentially lethal encounter. Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.
nobody's going to war in a self defence situation. someone comes at you with a gun with non fatal rounds and is a psychopath, I'd personally tactically avoid until help and bring the man down if inevitable. Note I'm talking about civilians here, not trained assassins.
Not when you have rounds available that are far more consistently effective.
killing someone while you can take down a person alive is far more effective in a self defence situation, sure.
My point about the lethal option is that less lethal rounds are a luxury which is only available because someone else is right there with lethal force protection.
Think about it, that just supports my line of arguments and suggestions.
Do you really think that mischarecterization of my position even looks like it holds water? A handgun is not an RPG. Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.
Well, it held my drink.
Common defense rounds are designed to expand in the body, reducing the likelihood of over-penetration which puts more people at risk.
And to cause muscle spasms and take ppl down, not put a potential hole through someone.
At least the aggressor may not be killed. Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death. If it weren’t the case, why stop with civilians? Why not make all cops carry only less lethal rounds? Nevermind, I’ve already answered this.
Cops need lethal rounds and I haven't disagreed to it, but not all civilians are cops and surely haven't been trained as cops.
Of course with variable effectiveness, the defending victim stands a higher chance of death..
Which is exactly why we need all civilians to have non fatal rounds and not variable lethality of rounds, best solution being non fatal rounds, which doesn't kill anyone unlike giving anyone the potential to kill anyone with ease. That way, even the one attacking can't kill others.
No. Ammo is designed to put holes in things, which happens to be the most effective way of stopping a living threat. A larger round will stop a larger threat (or a small threat more effectively). So if you go on a savannah tour, even though you aren’t hunting, I recommend you go with a guide that has a big gun to stop big threats.
I'd personally tactically avoid until help and bring the man down if inevitable. Note I'm talking about civilians here, not trained assassins.
In case of an active shooter, children and office workers are told to run hide fight. In that order. If it comes to that last option, will workers or teachers be better off wielding chairs or...?
killing someone while you can take down a person alive is far more effective in a self defence situation, sure.
Rather than addressing my points, your pretending I haven’t made them.
Which is exactly why we need all civilians to have non fatal rounds and not variable lethality of rounds, best solution being non fatal rounds, which doesn't kill anyone unlike giving anyone the potential to kill anyone with ease. That way, even the one attacking can't kill others.
Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have! That way they are on equal footing with law abiding citizens! It’s the reality of real ammunition that put all those holes in your punch drink.
No. Ammo is designed to put holes in things, which happens to be the most effective way of stopping a living threat. A larger round will stop a larger threat (or a small threat more effectively). So if you go on a savannah tour, even though you aren’t hunting, I recommend you go with a guide that has a big gun to stop big threats.
So your argument is, rounds were never made to kill. A gun is meant to kill, not stop threats. The whole purpose of inventing a gun was to use it as a replacement to other primitive weapons like the swords which were made to kill in a war, and hence the replacement(guns) were also made to kill. The fact that it stops threats is an implication from what it does, but the purpose of invention was to kill.
In case of an active shooter, children and office workers are told to run hide fight. In that order. If it comes to that last option, will workers or teachers be better off wielding chairs or...?
bring the man down if inevitable. obviously with the non fatal round.
Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have! That way they are on equal footing with law abiding citizens! It’s the reality of real ammunition that put all those holes in your punch drink.
yeah!
Now I can assume you've agreed to giving rpgs to felons just like you have assumed what my take is.
Yeah! And If they ban felons from Even owning guns, that takes care of most of the trouble right there! Now ban those felons who don’t have those guns from having ammo for those guns they don’t have!
Any civilian can turn into a felon, hence, you can never stop potential felons from having guns. Which is why, we need to have non fatal rounds. Looks like you're the one with holes in your punch drink here.
Rather than addressing my points, your pretending I haven’t made them.
So your argument is, rounds were never made to kill.
If this is your comprehension after reading “Ammo is designed to put holes in things”, then I think I see the problem.
bring the man down if inevitable. obviously with the non fatal round.
There’s no such thing as a non-fatal round. When the shooter gets to you’re corner with his very lethal rounds, you can hope to protect yourself with less lethal rounds. More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.
Now I can assume you've agreed to giving rpgs to felons just like you have assumed what my take is.
This makes your last snip about points being over my head all the better.
Felons are already banned from having guns. Yet they have them. Most gun deaths are from gang violence. Most gang members are felons and drug users, which are both already banned from having guns. Banning those same people from having certain ammo will not stop them from having said ammo.
Any civilian can turn into a felon, hence, you can never stop potential felons from having guns. Which is why, we need to have non fatal rounds.
First, that makes cops potential felons. Better take their rounds too. Second, since you cannot stop potential felons (everyone) from having guns, what the fuck makes you think you can stop them from having real ammo for that gun? Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.
Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.
If this is your comprehension after reading “Ammo is designed to put holes in things”, then I think I see the problem.
Intent leads to why things are made and hence bullets were made to kill which I've been typing for the past 4 arguments or so now. A definition is a semantically perfect description. Oh I do see the problem now.
There’s no such thing as a non-fatal round. When the shooter gets to you’re corner with his very lethal rounds, you can hope to protect yourself with less lethal rounds. More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.
There's no such thing as anything if that's the case. A non-fatal round is one that's not(intended to be) fatal. The last snip from my previous argument still holds good I see.
More effective than a chair, but less effective than regular rounds.
do you mind googling the word "effective" cause I've quoted that definition already and it seems my last snip still holds true.
Felons are already banned from having guns. Yet they have them. Most gun deaths are from gang violence. Most gang members are felons and drug users, which are both already banned from having guns. Banning those same people from having certain ammo will not stop them from having said ammo.
1)Re read my previous argument about felons.
2)Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic.
First, that makes cops potential felons. Better take their rounds too. Second, since you cannot stop potential felons (everyone) from having guns, what the fuck makes you think you can stop them from having real ammo for that gun? Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.
Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.
I'm sorry that you don't get stuff at the first go, but that's all I can say about it.
Cops are potential felons too. Never fuckin denied it. The thing is a person with a fucked up head is less likely to become a cop in the first place. Even if one does, There are shit loads of ways that can keep every cop under watch.
Just like it is now, the only people you will stop are those people willing to abide, ie non-felons. Leaving the worst of us with the most effective most lethal ammo.
Again, as I said, poor execution is not my business to worry about.
If there can't be changes in a society, it might as well suffer from it's problems.
Explaining simple shit to you is getting tedious, especially given no one is stupid enough to attempt to implement your idea. Since it will never happen, I’m calling it good enough for me to be done here.
Believe me I could've done that 3 arguments ago, but yeah I do support making changes, in this case tediously explaining my perspective, but yeah, you're not into changing anything as far as I see.
What you call poor execution of law, is simply reality. Imposing a law is not the same as imposing compliance. It never will be. There is a black market even in totalitarian North Korea. There is a law against felons having guns, and drug users having guns, and yet they still have guns. The people most responsible for murder are already banned from having guns. But you think shifting the law to ammo is the key? There is no reason to think that will work any better. You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.
Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".
The argument for banning real ammo is much the same as an argument for banning guns. The primary difference is that you know what a gun is but you can't seem to understand what a less lethal round is.
But hey, since your idea is fucking stupid, I guess society might as well suffer from its problems. Ignoring your idea will be one less problem to suffer from.
What you call poor execution of law, is simply reality. Imposing a law is not the same as imposing compliance. It never will be. There is a black market even in totalitarian North Korea. There is a law against felons having guns, and drug users having guns, and yet they still have guns. The people most responsible for murder are already banned from having guns. But you think shifting the law to ammo is the key? There is no reason to think that will work any better. You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.
Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".
The argument for banning real ammo is much the same as an argument for banning guns. The primary difference is that you know what a gun is but you can't seem to understand what a less lethal round is.
But hey, since your idea is fucking stupid, I guess society might as well suffer from its problems. Ignoring your idea will be one less problem to suffer from.
Please take the last word. I'm done with you.
If you're saying making laws are useless cause reality is something else, why even have laws in the first place? Now that's fucking stupid. Oh wait, that's not the first shitty implication you've made. You are constantly denying the fact that a different approach to a given problem can possibly be a solution.
Here's an idea; keep your guns and ammo, but just ban murder since "Bad execution of existing law is no reason for my idea to not hold good on this topic".
lol murder is illegal already. Oh and wait, that was among the first basic laws to be made, looks like your argument supports my idea for a law to be made.
You're calling for a law based on ignorance, which cannot be enforced, and calling it someone else's problem that it cannot be enforced.
If I did have the power to improve implementation, I'd give every ounce to it. But yeah, I can't change ppl's mindsets so until ppl don't think like me, there can't be change.
And anyway, even if we talk about implementation of law being difficult and henceforth don't make a law, we might as well make all crimes legal. lol let's ban murders backfired alright xD.
But hey, cause everything you've said till now has been fuckin stupid, I'm done here.
