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.
There are rare exceptions but for the most part you do indeed require somebody with a gun to stop somebody else with one, even if that somebody is a police officer.
The legalisation of guns is very useful to power because it means there is always an element of public safety to exploit during election time. That is the real reason for spectacular fallacies such as that mentioned in the OP.
"The only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!", tries to fraudulently revise a balanced equation into a top heavy equation by failing to illustrate that you can't arm the good guy without simultaneously arming the bad guy. That's the way reality works. Being a "good guy" is not a prerequisite for legally buying a gun in America. Hence, nobody would need a "good guy with a gun" if you hadn't also sold the bad guy a gun.
Sure you can't arm the good guy without simultaneously arming the bad guy (although background checks are kind of an important part of the attempt to not arm the bad guy) but here's how "reality works": if you're going to dis arm the good guy, you need a plan to effectively and reliably disarm the bad guy too. Do you actually have a plan to do that? Because I can make an AR15 in about a day or two with a lathe and a milling machine, and so can any bad guy. Are we going to go door to door collecting both weapons and the tools to make them? Do you really think that you'd be able to find them all? Second, do you have a plan to identify said bad guy before they get their hands on a weapon? Then maybe keep an eye on their expense accounts to keep them from purchasing weapons or the tools and raw materials needed to make them? Of course not, those resources don't exist, and also for the same reason that we can't identify minors to deny them driver's licenses when they haven't yet gotten a DUI and killed a school bus full of kids: No one is clairvoyant, and no one knows who's going to snap later on in life.
I already know you're going to act like a child in response, if you respond at all, and attempt to claim the intellectual high ground without acknowledging the holes in your logic, because that's what you routinely do. And that's fine, it's the internet, I have better shit to do than worry about it. I just hope that you're at least able to, in private if nothing else, ask necessary questions about your worldview. And if I'm wrong, and you're actually capable of rational discourse instead of tantrums and want to talk it out like intelligent adults, I apologize in advance, and I promise a respectful back- and- forth. Somehow I don't think that will happen, but I'd actually like to see you prove me wrong.
Sure you can't arm the good guy without simultaneously arming the bad guy (although background checks are kind of an important part of the attempt to not arm the bad guy) but here's how "reality works": if you're going to dis arm the good guy, you need a plan to effectively and reliably disarm the bad guy too.
Nonsense. The entire "good guy" v "bad guy" argument is a false dichotomy in the first place. You can't talk about "reality" and then lump everybody into one of two baskets because reality isn't black and white like that. You need one plan and only one plan: you make gun possession a crime, punishable with a mandatory five year jail sentence. In other words, you disincentivise gun possession rather than incentivise it.
Making possession a crime and disincentivising ownership didn't work with drugs or alcohol. Why would it work with guns? Now all you have is a bunch of armed criminals with no reason to be afraid that their victims can fight back, much like Mexico.
Of course the "good guy versus bad guy" isn't usually so black and white- at least, when you're at the gun counter and you've passed the background check (or, admittedly, in situations of gang violence) but it's pretty black and white when someone is mugging you, or breaking into your home, or starting a mass shooting.
Look, there are plenty of things that we can do to reduce the murder rate, and to slow down mass shootings that have nothing to do with gun laws. Stop talking about mental health care and get an actual plan established. Stop giving all of the money to the rich and start creating some jobs by investing in infrastructure and scientific advances such as clean energy and aerospace technologies (you'll notice, the cities with the highest murder rates are also almost identical to the list of the cities with the highest concentration of people below the poverty line). I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, I'm saying that focusing on taking the guns away not only won't solve that problem of why people are violent but will incentivize people who are willing to commit violence for personal gain to do so since they have nothing to fear from the general population.
And I would like to say, I'm glad you proved me wrong and that we're here having civil discussion. I greatly appreciate that.
you'll notice, the cities with the highest murder rates are also almost identical to the list of the cities with the highest concentration of people below the poverty line
I'd like to know where you get the data for highest concentration of people below the poverty line. It's a bit different than poverty rate, which is not a very clear correlation with murder rate by city.
Crime rate and murder rate are very different things. Crime and poverty correlate strongly. But when I checked crime rate to murder rate by city, I do not see a correlation. Which is why I asked where to get stats on poverty concentration, which is what you originally referenced.
It appears that the lists you have don't match up because the murder rate list focuses only on major cities, and the poverty rate list focuses on all American cities, as near as I can tell. I absolutely agree that comparing the murder rate to the poverty rate doesn't tell the whole story, but socioeconomic issues seem to be a relevant and important metric to address in relation to violence (not to mention another good reason to invest in programs that will actually create jobs).
One question I've been pondering lately is why there are no programs designed to reach out to people who are considering mass violence. We have a suicide hotline and other programs designed for people considering self harm, it seems that we don't have a similar program to reach out and help people who are considering harming others before they go over the edge, only because we are afraid of the concept and prefer to think that no such people are actually living among us. For such a hot debate as mass shootings you would think that research into the subject would be a priority- I wonder how many people are actually employed in the psychoanalysis of mass murderers, and who even dares to do so. I wonder if we could create computer generated simulations of mass casualty events and insert different variables into both historical and potential situations, study different results, and possibly learn the best ways to save lives when these events occur in reality. Of course, the odds of actually being killed in a mass shooting is next to zero, but it has such attention that you would think there would be some serious study in this field.
I would also like to ask: what is your stance on Gun Free Zones?
I believe the murder rate appears to focus on larger cities because that’s where murder rates are higher, hence my comment about population density. It makes sense. One doesn’t expect a rural slum with spread a out population to have the same murder rate as an urban slum with a high population density.
When people think of mass shootings, they aren’t usually thinking of the drive by or nightclub shooting that stems from gang violence. They usually aren’t thinking of the guy who murders his family and burns down the house or the postpartum depressed woman who does the same. When people think of a mass shooter, they are thinking of they gunman who shoots into crowds unprovoked by anything but insanity or ideology. Mass shootings are relatively rare, but the kind of mass shooting that people most think of is exceedingly rare. Its hard for researchers to get funding for rare phenomenon, even when it is of devastating importance.
Absolutely concur. And being stationed aboard an aircraft carrier, I can definitely attest as to how homicidal people can get when stacked on top of one another.
Also, considering that a large portion of the murder rate is due to gang violence, I wonder what could be done to address their motives. Perhaps it would be different from situation to situation, but I imagine drug trafficking plays a significant role as well as socioeconomics. Personally I stand in favor of legalization and regulation of substances, violence being only one reason, but that's an entirely separate debate.
While I am sure drug terf is a good portion of the violence, users of certain various illicit drugs are also more prone to violence and substance induced insanity. Substance abuse is also higher among lower socioeconomic classes. I believe the legalization of certain substances would help the situation, while certain other substances would not. But yes, that is another topic.
I assume that most Americans are law abiding citizens.. IF the government banned guns, MOST people would give them up. Using your numbers alone, that would mean a DRAMATIC reduction in guns. I can't see how that WOULDN'T be effective in saving lives.
Would it be an absolute?? Nahhh.. But, we don't make law with the expectation that absolutely EVERYBODY will comply..
The only legal way for the government to ban guns is through a Constitutional Amendment. If it was politically feasible to do this, it would mean American attitudes toward guns are sufficiently changed that most of the population would abide by the ban. However, as it is right now, I’d the government attempted to ban guns tomorrow, they would make a vast number of law abiding citizens into criminals. Guns remain because the voting public wants them. Even if you don’t.
it would mean American attitudes toward guns are sufficiently changed that most of the population would abide by the ban
You have things upside down as per usual. We don't throw laws away because certain members of the public decide they are going to break them. If I ban guns and you decide to ignore the law then I am going to put you in jail. The very point of law in the first place is to force you to behave in a civilised manner for fear of the consequences.
If I ban guns and you decide to ignore the law then I am going to put you in jail
A totalitarian wannabe such as yourself may not understand the concept of a government answerable to its people. Without the support of the people, any politician who attempts to amend the Constitution would loose their job. Any politician who made that law, without the proper Constitutional measures, would loose their job.. The people you would arrest would be acquitted and get to keep their guns, rendering any any ban moot unless the Constitution is amended.
Oh, I see, Herr Amarel. Expecting people to obey the law is "totalitarianism", is it? Why do you bother to debate people at all when all you do is lie about them? You are a lying Jewish halfwit, and your concept of "debate" is to stretch reality like silly putty until it forms the shape you want it to.
may not understand the concept of a government answerable to its people.
Oh do shut up you unfathomable hypocrite. I don't see you protesting the draconian drug laws which prohibit citizens choosing what to put in their own bodies. You are a staunch defender of the illegal war in Iraq, which I remind you was also heavily disfavoured by the public. Your double standards would quite literally put Hitler to shame. Just for a start, you are making a wild personal assumption that most of the public even wants to live in a warzone in the first place. No sane person wants the risk of being shot by an idiot like you when they go out to buy coffee.
Five years after the start of the conflict in Iraq, many public evaluations of the situation in Iraq have turned more positive. But there has been no turnaround in the public’s opinion about the original decision to take military action in Iraq. While ratings of how things are going in Iraq have improved over the past year and more Americans now say the United States should keep troops there, the proportion saying the initial decision to go to war was wrong has increased since the spring of 2007.
In Pew’s latest national survey, conducted Feb. 20-24 among 1,508 adults, a 54% majority said the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force in Iraq, while 38% said it was the right decision. Last March, 49% said the decision to got to war was wrong, while 43% said it was right.
Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention.
Days before the March 20 invasion, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found support for the war was related to UN approval. Nearly six in 10 said they were ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two." But that support dropped off if the U.N. backing was not first obtained. If the U.N. Security Council were to reject a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favored a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration did not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war dropped to 47%
Immediately after the 2003 invasion most polls within the United States showed a substantial majority of Americans supporting war, but that trend began to shift less than a year after the war began. Beginning in December 2004, polls have consistently shown that a majority thinks the invasion was a mistake.
Of course. I only posted two lines. You are now way past dishonesty and well into delusion. Congratulations on that, you quote-mining nincompoop.
Consistent with the anti-war sentiment of the protests, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, American public opinion heavily favored a diplomatic solution over immediate military intervention. A January 2003 CBS News/New York Times poll found that 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq situation, compared with 31% who favored immediate military intervention.
You don’t even see the lead of those questions? Which do you favor: Talking the burglar into police custody, or shooting him on site? Wow
Here’s the thing. Unlike you, I was there. There was popular support as well as political support at the time of the invasion. As a matter of fact, if there wasn’t, your 9/11 conspiracy has a big hole.
Obviously not everybody would comply. Look at how many people do not comply with laws against murder.
The only laws that matter are the ones that prohibit things we actually want to avoid. People don't actually care about controlling guns; that is just a means. What people really care about is preventing murders/attempted murders.
This is why the gun control laws we have now are so ineffective. The people who disobey the laws we care about (murder) will definitely disobey the laws we don't care about (gun regulations).
You seriously think it is impossible to ban anything that is already in the country? What a strange stance. The more items there are in the country the longer it would take for the ban become effective but bans do generally work.
As previously mentioned, I'm not for banning guns. I disagree that the only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun - it's nonsense. The concept behind the statement is nonsense, too - famously, in the Oregon shooting, there was a good guy with a gun...a trained good guy with a gun...who heroically saved lives by not drawing it.
After claiming the statement is bullshit, you provided an example (with no source link) of a good guy with a gun?
Maybe you should provide a different example where a bad guy with a gun is stopped by a good guy who has no gun and is not protected by armed backup, that would better make your point. Also, that doesn’t happen.
I'll get you a source link. The point I made was that the gun did nothing in that situation, because the guy with training realized he could do more harm than good by using it.
It does happen, on occasion, that a good guy with a gun can find another way to stop a bad guy with a gun without shooting him. But Not if that bad guy is using his gun. Otherwise cops wouldn’t need to carry guns. The fact that the cop has the gun enables him to put himself in situations where he can talk someone down. Knowing that he has a gun to draw if needed allows cops to go where they otherwise wouldn’t.
Again, I'm not for banning guns...I do want better gun control, and the idea of licensing, I think, isn't bad - but the title of the debate does have exceptions.
"A security guard wounded when he approached Stephen Paddock's room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on Sunday night is being credited with distracting the gunman, possibly stopping him from continuing to shoot at crowds near the Las Vegas Strip, 32 floors below, a Las Vegas law-enforcement official said on Friday."
AND, it seems, about as often as the good guy with a gun ... if you deduct the times when the "good guy" was a trained policeman with a gun.
Another problem is the number of "good guys" (trained) with guns (cops) who have turned out to be BAD guys with guns! To paraphrase a famous Republican: Guns are not part of the solution, guns are part of the PROBLEM. ;<)
I'm NOT for taking guns away (except maybe assault weapons and long magazines), but, We COULD reduce gun deaths by making it harder for BAD guys (including known terrorists) to get guns! There can be NO argument here! Logically, that is!
Maybe you should provide a different example where a bad guy with a gun is stopped by a good guy who has no gun
You are the one who needs to do the explaining. Why do you support the sale of guns to bad guys to the first place? Clearly, if you stop selling guns to bad guys then the good guys will no longer need them.
Clearly you do, because there is nothing in American gun legislation which says you have to be a "good guy" in order to buy a gun. Yet you are here attempting to defend American gun legislation with a crock of bullshit and lies that amending it would be tantamount to totalitarianism.
Literally everything you say contradicts itself. You are so intellectually dishonest that it would be a joke if you weren't seriously trying to have a debate.
Are you literally stupid? Hundreds of thousands of bad guys do not presently have criminal convictions. As per usual, you are trying to merge together two entirely different concepts and pretend they are one. How best to deceive an audience is your only consideration during an argument. Try honesty for once, you damned Darth Vader wannabe.
Let's say I have a bad childhood and begin to hate people. By my early twenties I get involved in crime and shoot a bunch of people. What is the actual point of banning me from buying guns after I have already used guns to kill a bunch of people??
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It is rare that a person with no criminal record or prohibiting mental health issue buys a gun legally and uses it criminally. Murderers are almost always some young criminal with an extensive record in the inner city getting a gun illegally. Why? Because he would never pass a background check.
Mass shootings are a rare event. Do you know how many of our mass shootings in all of our history it would take to equal the number killed in 1 year in Chicago alone? Like I said, most murders done by gun are done with illegally acquired guns ie gang violence.
Look Amarel, I'm done with this conversation. If you can't figure out the difference between debating and lying then I have nothing further to say to you.
In 2015, there were 372 mass shootings and 33,636 deaths due to firearms in the U.S, while guns were used to kill about 50 people in the U.K.
I like how you run that together so as to imply the 33,673 is from mass shootings. It isn’t.
I'm done with this conversation
That’s a good idea because the longer you talk the higher your bullshit stacks.
Do you know what qualifies as a mass shooting? Do you know how many gangland shootings would qualify? Do you know why felons cannot own a gun? It isn’t because we have no idea how a criminal might use one. Do you know why cops have guns? Because when someone is shooting at people, they need to be shot to be stopped, which is the point of the OP.
I would have to sort through the cases to see what each one is, but I had to chuckle at the first one I checked out. It was Jarred Kirsch who died in an mass shooting on November 3rd. The investigation is ongoing but it appears that Kirsch was attempting to force his way into a home. He was shot and killed and 3 others were wounded. Hmm.
I’m curious to know what definition they use. It’s not the unofficial “5 or more victims” since there were 4 in the one I checked.
When you say most wont be stopped with a gun, what makes you think so? Have you ever seen an active shooter stopped by others who had no guns? When people flee or kill themselves, they are avoiding the folks coming with guns.
A cursory look at the list shows that most are over when 1 of a couple things happen. The suspect kills themselves, someone stops the suspect (if this happens its usually with a gun), the targets are all shot (people shoot their family and stop), the bullets run out, or the cops stop them. Your source seems to go by the standard that a minimum of 4 people injured or killed by gunfire in one event constitutes a mass shooting
I cannot say how most shootings are stopped, they are often not stopped by people but by circumstances. I can say that when they are stopped by people, those people are often cops. If they do not stop the act directly, their approach is often sufficient (gang violence).
So it is not quite accurate to say that the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Often the bad guy with the gun stops himself with a bullet to his own head. But a good guy without a gun stands a significantly smaller chance of stopping a shooter than a good guy with a gun. But as I said, these aren't typically stopped by people with guns. This is because the cops take time to get there. In other words, good guys with guns usually aren't around.
Technically, it doesn't take a gun to stop another, a SWAT team can use shields and swords, or others can use different types of projectiles, such as spears, bow with arrows, throwing knives, the list goes on, but it all depends on who defeats who first.
I disagree that the only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I've seen people holding guns disarmed before. I've even had guns aimed at me personally.
No amount of me warning people that there is a section of the government attempting to overthrow it and replace it with something else that is probably not going to be better is going to convince people that those who want to take the guns are doing it for nefarious purposes... But I believe this to be the truth.
Step one: elect 2/3rds of congress to your cause. That's 67 senators and 290 representatives. Got that? OK.
Step 2: have them propose a vote to an amendment to the constitution which repeals the second amendment (hope citizens don't revolt).
Step 3: Get the legislatures of 38 states to ratify that amendment.
Congratulations! The 2nd amendment no longer exists. But wait! Guns are still legal- you've just removed the barrier for the government to enact legislation to that end. Which brings us to:
Step 4: enact "common sense" gun reform. Here's a little secret: no one can agree on what the hell that means. Anyone who says the phrase "common sense gun laws" usually has uninformed, incomplete ideas on the subject that A) won't work and B) are referred to as "common sense" only because they think that such a statement validates their claims and puts them on an intellectual high ground. In reality, "common sense" is just a label that sounds good in their own heads, and when debated rationally they usually can't defend their ideas. But! Thankfully, we're not talking about "common sense gun reform", we're talking about a complete ban. So get that law passed, and get it signed by the president, assuming the people haven't already stormed the capital. Hooray! Guns are illegal! Now you have to:
Step 5: enforce the law. Oh, good luck with this one. Well, it's only one gun per person in this country. Actually a little more. So, let's have a massive mobilization of all branches of the military & National Guard, the ATF, the FBI, Homeland Security, DOD, every single local law enforcement agency in the country, etc, etc, etc. Which is an epic cluster fuck in and of itself. They all get to go door to door, demanding people turn over their weapons (repeat steps 1-3 to repeal the 4th amendment, and the 9th). From 300 million people. Many of whom aren't giving up their guns without starting the next fucking civil war. And here's an interesting question: will law enforcement even carry out that mission? I've been in the military some time now, and most of us are some of the most pro gun people you've ever heard of. Would they actually confiscate everyone's weapons, and turn their own personal weapons over, or would they go home and say "come and take them"? Which brings up another interesting point: anti gun people often ask what good it will do to have an AR15 when the army is coming after me with a tank. What's more accurate is to say that three soldiers are coming after me in a tank. Three soldiers who swore to uphold the constitution above all else, are probably pro- gun, and hate the ever loving hell out of congress and all of their bullshit. I'm willing to bet most of them won't engage an American civilian target at all, and some will turn their tank around and find something else to point it at. Like the politician giving them unlawful orders. (Oh, and it's also noteworthy that while the military has the bigger guns, we have more of them. A lot more. And they also don't have the greatest track record against insurgent tactics. Remember Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq? None of those ended well.)
Oh, and if all that happens, I'll still be able to make AR15s with a lathe & milling machine at a rate of about one a day.
Look, taking weapons away from people isn't going to guarantee that someone won't be able to get their hands on one anyway. It's just going to guarantee that the only people without guns are the people who choose to follow the law. If you're of a mind to kill someone, you're not going to change your mind because owning the gun is illegal. Not legal does not mean not armed. Not armed does not mean not dangerous. And as far as what will stop a bad guy with a gun: it sure as fuck isn't a good guy without a gun.
Instead, why don't we have a discussion about why so- called "gun free zones" exist? I seriously want to hear an intelligent argument for that one, I really do- especially considering that the deadliest mass shootings routinely occur in these areas. Why do we put up signs that effectively say "The occupants of this designated are have been rendered defenseless for the convenience of any passing psychopath"? Do people really think that someone with the mind to kill as many people as possible are going to see that sign, and think to themselves that they had better not bring their guns to kill people here, because that would be illegal? And why do we give people like this positions of power instead of a corrective bitch slap?
There is a grain of truth to it. But just one litte grain. Life just isn't that simple...
1) Law enforcement could stop them
2) Intelligent design of businesses and homes (even basic lock-up) can stop them.
3) Sometimes a dog can stop them
4) Sometimes a nonlethal technique, like an incredibly loud siren, can stop them.
5) Sometimes a spotlight or security camera can stop them.
6) Some other kind of weapon might stop them (even simply a taser or pepperspray).
7) Fear for their own family or loved ones may stop them
8) Sometimes a panic room to escape to can stop them.
9) Being outnumbered by unarmed people willing to do what it takes can stop them.
10) Technically another bad guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. (That's like when a white supremacist is raising hell and some gangster of some other color pops a cap in his @ss).
