CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
15
FUCK YES!!!! FARK NO!!!!
Debate Score:36
Arguments:37
Total Votes:37
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 FUCK YES!!!! (17)
 
 FARK NO!!!! (13)

Debate Creator

ghostheadX(1104) pic



We should all have guns!!!

So I've heard this argument before every time I heard a shooting two years ago. And I was thinking about it recently. If 100% of the population owned a gun, then there'd be no point in shooting up a school because it would be guaranteed that by the time you shot five people, someone would have shot you first (the second or third person). This defeats the point of shooting up a school, movie theater, etc. in the first place. Others say they don't want anyone at the age of 16 to have a gun if they want. Thoughts?

 

According to this solution, guns would be taught in schools or it would be required by the government that everyone learn to use them by a certain age. It would be like learning to drive a car.

FUCK YES!!!!

Side Score: 21
VS.

FARK NO!!!!

Side Score: 15

Personally, I believe we should adopt the Swiss model where the majority of adults are conscripted when they reach the age of maturity of the "militia" (I suppose it would be National Guard for us) and have to perform a set amount of service which includes quality gun training. Then, upon completion, they are given a gun that they are to keep at their residence as a matter of the national obligation. These individuals will see the firearm as a responsibility, not a toy, and will be well trained in their usage.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

Have not heard of the Swiss model, but its sounds well planned and effective. I have three guns and no formal training. Even at that, I'm better off than no guns.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!

but its sounds well planned and effective

That's the Swiss for ya.

I have three guns and no formal training. Even at that, I'm better off than no guns.

You personally are, yes, but I have an issue with the concept of a large populace of gun owners without formal training theoretically using them in public places (to stop crimes, I mean). Conceptually it just sounds like a recipe for accidental shootings.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

Even at that, I'm better off than no guns.

How so? When will you need to use these weapons? How can you be sure you won't unintentionally harm someone, since you are untrained? If no one had guns, wouldn't you feel safer?

Side: FARK NO!!!!
2 points

I like it!! Didn't get that present you asked Santa for? Problem solved!! LOL

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

The problem solved link doesn't work bro. It denied my access. Its coming from the server so there isn't a lot I can do but ask you. Otherwise, there might be something I could try.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
RavenLily(733) Disputed
2 points

I have to dispute you for the simple fact I'm not a Bro, otherwise my name would be RavenLarry, LOL As for the link, IDK why it denied you- I can see it? Anywho, here you go Bro:))

http://dailycurrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/shutterstock 82786249-e1417285555693.jpg

Side: FARK NO!!!!
1 point

I think gun free zones on public property are dangerous and unconstitutional. If teachers(Who wanted to carry) all had guns it would be a safer place for sure.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

I feel that as the authorities have failed miserably at protecting the civilian population from violent attacks by thugs and psychopathic maniacs, both in public places and in their own home, we should be given the means to protect ourselves. Yes, there will be tragic accidents with mass firearm ownership, just as there is with mass ownership of motorized transport. At the very least everyone should have the right to own a firearm as a personal protection weapon( P.P.W.) and those who are opposed to possessing a lethal weapon could refuse the option.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

That is because it is not the authorities job to protect you. It is YOUR job to protect yourself. You are the first responder everytime. Warren v. District of Columbia stated it is no the polices job to protect you, it is their job to enforce the law.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
Kalamazoo(316) Clarified
1 point

I read that article on the Warren versus District of Columbia. Whilst it is, in my view, an indictment on the police department of that precinct and the slovenly execution of their duty by the responding officers, it does reinforce my view that everyone should have the means to protect themselves. It also makes a nonsense of the motto, of what I think belongs to the N.Y.P.D.,;- Protect and Serve. Omit the the 'Protect'' and add, ''the doughnuts and you would have a more accurate description of American cops who seem good at eating doughnuts and shooting people. Well there you have it wee Mr. & Mrs Mc Dookie, you're on your own, good luck.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!

Obama has talked more about gun control and violence than anything else as a category. Countries with stricter gun laws than us often have more violence. Mark Levine had an episode on this (he's conservative but he's pretty smart, but there's some stuff I find bad about him from that but not this). He showed a recording on his radio show earlier today talking about how we think stricter gun laws will prevent shootings. Yet, in a most of countries with more gun laws. Obama denies this in this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politics/obama-south-carolina-church-shooting/

But its true:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbyfirearm-relateddeathrate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides- compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

Obama's wrong. Therefore, our stricter gun control laws are useless.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

That is what the 2nd is all about. protecting common military weapons in use at the time. Hence M16's are protected

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

The primary purpose of the 2nd amendment was to allow the people to form a militia in case they felt the government had too much control.

However, our government has weapons way worse than guns. And they have drones. As such, that purpose cannot effectively be achieved.

Side: FARK NO!!!!
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

I agree, unless you changed the right to form a militia to allow other things besides guns, like hacktivism or nuclear weapons, but now I'm going into a completely different subject.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

That worked sooooooo will in the wild west let me tall ya !

Side: FARK NO!!!!
2 points

The wild west actually had fairly strict gun control, despite popular depictions of it.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
2 points

Exactly. Cowboys were not violent vigilantes, like westerns show us. Cowboys, in real life, basically moved cattle from one spot to another all day.

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
1 point

Obviously, giving everyone guns will help maintain the peace; especially with "Stand Your Ground" laws.

Side: FARK NO!!!!
ghostheadX(1104) Disputed
1 point

If your being sarcastic, let me tell you something. Countries with stricter gun laws than the US often have higher rates of shootings. Countries like the higher ones on this list prove you wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

Side: FUCK YES!!!!
flewk(1192) Disputed
1 point

If your being sarcastic, let me tell you something. Countries with stricter gun laws than the US often have higher rates of shootings. Countries like the higher ones on this list prove you wrong:

There is also data that shows countries with stricter gun control laws have lower firearm homicide rates. Your statement does not suggest cause and effect. That article does not suggest cause and effect. The studies that correlate lower homicide rates with strict gun control also cannot show cause and effect.

If you actually want to discuss the correlative and causative effects of gun legislation/enforcement by country, we could certainly try. There will be a lot of history involved.

Side: FARK NO!!!!

In my opinion, mandatory gun possession is not a wise implementation. It would lead to chaos.

Side: FARK NO!!!!
1 point

I know school ban guns because it would kill people and students

Side: FARK NO!!!!
ghostheadX(1104) Clarified
1 point

They banned it for the students. No one ever said a teacher couldn't have a gun right?

Side: FUCK YES!!!!

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: FARK NO!!!!