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.
I support banning your stupid ass from the internet. Your left mouse button should be connected to an electrical substation and engineered to give you a heavy shock every time you use it.
No ability whatsoever to make a rational human response eh Nom?
There is only one rational human response to the question of whether you should freely sell weapons of mass destruction to aspiring rapists and terrorists, and yours is MOST DEFINITELY not it.
What gun laws or gun law enforcement measures would you support?
Hello A:
When a firearm changes hands, the NEW owner should be required to go through a comprehensive background check.
Requiring purchasers of NEW guns to go through one, but not purchasers of USED guns, i.e. private sales, makes NO SENSE. If we wanna actually know WHO has a gun, then why go through the motions PRETENDING that's what we're doing??
SUPER STUPID you TOTALITARIANS cannot stop private sales of firearms. It is a PIPE DREAM you IDIOTS wish you could control but that ain't happening !!!!!!!!!!!
I’m mostly on board, but I see room for exceptions and concerns with enforcement:
- An immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check.
- Background checks should be required to obtain a “proof of background check” certificate, which would be necessary for a private sale. The certificate would need to be current within a year.
- My concern with enforcement is that sales by private people in private residence (not at gun shows) cannot be tracked at all. Any means to track such activity would be a step too far in my opinion, leaving such a requirement toothless in the vast majority of illegal gun sales.
An immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check.
Hello A:
Clean, according to who? It's like enforcing a speed limit but not for Fords.. Because some people won't obey a law is NOT a reason to NOT pass one..
What is the PURPOSE of requiring someone - anyone to go through a background check??? To make the libs happy.. To give the government something to do??? DUDE!
If it's to make SURE that people who BUY guns aren't fucked up, then requiring only SOME of them to go through a check is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID..
Do you suppose t is guesswork whether a person ever committed a crime? People often know, without the FBI telling them, that their immediate family members have never been arrested.
What is the PURPOSE of requiring someone - anyone to go through a background check?
A background check serves to inform a seller who does not know if a person has a criminal record. Requiring one when the sellers do know is serves literally no purpose.
To make the libs happy..
Requiring a background check for people known to have no criminal background really would serve only to make libs happy. It’s an unnecessary cost burden on innocent people, which should be avoided.
If it's to make SURE that people who BUY guns aren't fucked up, then requiring only SOME of them to go through a check is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID..
Background checks can’t tell you whether someone is fucked up, they can only tell you if they have a criminal record. If it is well known that they don’t have a criminal record, requiring a background check is...well, you know.
Do you suppose t is guesswork whether a person ever committed a crime? People often know, without the FBI telling them, that their immediate family members have never been arrested.
Hello again, A:
Well, then.. We can shitcan the whole program, and just have gun buyers bring a note from mommy?
We can shitcan the whole program, and just have gun buyers bring a note from mommy?
You prefer a note from Nanny State. That’s fine. But immediate family members who have thorough knowledge of family criminal background will accomplish nothing by getting that note which says what they already knew it would say.
I think you understand that immediate family with thorough knowledge of your criminal history is not the same as a random gun store owner. You know this, but your bias isn’t allowing you to give one reasonable inch. If you know your son has never been arrested, what purpose is served by his background check, which you know he will pass?
I have 3 sons - all adults.. I think I know that none of them have been arrested, but the truth is, I DON'T.
Talk about bias. You don't want ANYBODY to have to go through a background check, so you come up with this bull shit that parents KNOW if their kids are FUCKED up, and I should RELY on that.
You IDIOT you go on some LEFTIST INSANE rant and here is proof !!!!!!!!!!
Hello again, A:
I have 3 sons - all adults.. I think I know that none of them have been arrested, but the truth is, I DON'T.
Talk about bias. You don't want ANYBODY to have to go through a background check, so you come up with this bull shit that parents KNOW if their kids are FUCKED up, and I should RELY on that.
DUDE!
excon
Did your uninformed ass just type this ??????????? I have 3 sons - all adults.. I think I know that none of them have been arrested, but the truth is, I DON'T.
Is that the words of a FELON that you claim to be ??????????????
So according to SUPER STUPID if one walks into a gun shop to purchase a weapon they are not subject to a background check ????????
So according to SUPER STUPID if one walks into a gun shop to purchase a weapon they are not subject to a background check ??
They might be subject to a check, but there is nothing preventing them from passing the weapon onto someone else. Furthermore, a lot of people with bad intentions are able to purchase firearms without having a proper background check simply by acquiring them at roadshows, or over the internet. Finally, let us not forget that each state has its own gun laws, so it is possible for someone to acquire a gun in one state which they would not be able to acquire in another, and then simply drive to the other state to commit a crime.
In sum, your country is one giant clusterfuck of gun problems. And the biggest problem is your attitude toward guns.
I have 3 sons - all adults.. I think I know that none of them have been arrested, but the truth is, I DON'T.
I said known background. So if you sell them a gun, and you’re wrong, then you would be in breach of the law. If you sell them a gun and it turns out you actually know your kids, and they don’t have a criminal background, then you aren’t breaking the law by skipping the background.
If we kept to your application, then immediate family members who know that the backgrounds are perfectly clear would be selling guns to each other, everyone involved is perfectly valid to have them, but suddenly dad is a crook because he didn’t have the FBI verify his son. That’s fuckin stupid.
Talk about bias.
No kidding. You follow this by declaring that I believe the opposite of what I said based on nothing more than your bias. Try again con.
SUPER STUPID you IDIOTS on the LEFT cannot and never will be able to control private gun sales. Pass all the laws you want to pertaining to private gun sales but that law could not ever be enforced and there is no way to enforce such a law !!!!!!!!!!!!
Ted Bundy having a brother is irrelevant to the conversation.
Bundy bludgeoned and strangled his victims and avoided firearms for their noise. Bundy had a clean record prior to being caught, meaning a background check would have granted him a gun purchase. After his crimes came to light, a background check would have not granted him clearance to purchase, nor would his brother be able to legally sell one to him.
Ted Bundy having a brother is irrelevant to the conversation.
You are retarded. That is very relevant to the conversation. You say the most stupid, obviously false things and then expect a serious response from people. The fact that Ted Bundy has a (non-criminal) brother is a direct refutation to your argument. Hence, what do you expect a person to do when they read your bizarre denial of objective reality?
Bundy bludgeoned and strangled his victims and avoided firearms for their noise
Bundy was a completely hypothetical character used to prove a point, you retarded nitwit. What he killed his victims with hasn't the slightest relevance. Just because my brother is a raging psychopath does not mean he doesn't have a brother who can pass a background check, hence your argument that the psychopathic brother should then not be checked is OBVIOUSLY FUCKING STUPID. We can further determine this to be true by the fact that EVERYTHING YOU EVER WRITE is stupid. Everything you ever write is a total, systematic assault on reason.
The fact that Ted Bundy has a (non-criminal) brother is a direct refutation to your argument.
His non-criminal brother is also irrelevant. No one is concerned about Bundy selling one of those guns he didn’t use to his non-criminal brother.
Bundy was a completely hypothetical character used to prove a point
I do t know how else to tell you this, and it might come as a shock, but Bundy was a real person. A person irrelevant to the topic at hand. Even had he used guns, his criminal record would either be unknown to a background check (before he was caught) or known to a background check AND his brother, in which case it would be illegal to sell him a gun.
hence your argument that the psychopathic brother should then not be checked is OBVIOUSLY FUCKING STUPID.
You should try to understand the positions you attack before you attack them. You might look a little less foolish.
When I said an immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check, I assumed you understood that checks are required to purchase. If your brother is a criminal who can’t buy a gun, then you can’t sell to him. If he is not a criminal and can buy a gun, and you know that, then you can. Pretty simple, though over your head.
His non-criminal brother is also irrelevant. No one is concerned about Bundy selling one of those guns he didn’t use to his non-criminal brother.
Oh God you are simply so ASTONISHINGLY CROOKED AND STUPID. It's the OPPOSITE of what you said. The non-criminal brother would pass the background check and then pass the gun onto his psychopathic, mass-murdering brother. Shut your idiot mouth you moron.
I do t know how else to tell you this, and it might come as a shock, but Bundy was a real person.
He was a hypothetical example used to prove the point that some family members can be criminals while other family members are not criminals. It isn't rocket science you stupid fascist troglodyte.
You should try to understand the positions you attack before you attack them. You might look a little less foolish.
You should try to understand that I literally shit things out with a higher IQ than you.
When I said an immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check, I assumed you understood that checks are required to purchase. If your brother is a criminal who can’t buy a gun, then you can’t sell to him.
This is an extension of your RETARDED fallacy where you reverse the roles of the participants involved in the purchase of the gun. Let me repeat it again, so it sinks in really deep into that utterly dense head:-
The clean brother buys the gun.
He passes it to Bundy.
Now, would you like me to translate that into Hebrew for you? Or do you understand now?
Besides which, Ted Bundy MURDERED DOZENS OF WOMEN before he was ever declared a "criminal" by the state. Hence, that too is a fallacy. Bundy himself could have bought a gun had he wanted to.
It’s impossible to know what exactly you fail to understand about “an immediate family member with a known clean history should not be required to get a background check”. It’s very simple and very irrelevant to your Bundy example. If Bundy has a clean record, then he would pass a background check and his brother commits no crime in passing him a gun. If bundy has a record, then his brother knows it, and breaks the law in passing Bundy a gun.
You are say such stupid shit so often that I often think you have to be fucking with me. That’s why I usually ignore you.
Correct. I am reminded of the time you spent four days steadfastly denying that the Iraq War was illegal. The bottom line is that you have never, not once, ever, admitted you are wrong. And the reason for that is because you are a moronic, dishonest, pathologically narcissistic halfwit.
It’s impossible to know what exactly you fail to understand about “an immediate family member with a known clean history
No, what is impossible to understand is why you are seemingly unaware of the dimension called time. People are only CRIMINALS after they are CONVICTED OF A CRIME. Hence, Ted Bundy (and millions of others) who either murder or fantasise about murdering are able to legally obtain a firearm. What you have actually written here is a total contradiction of itself, since you say a background check (which checks whether your history is clean) should not be performed on an immediate family member with a known clean history!! It's paradoxical gibberish.
If Bundy has a clean record, then he would pass a background check
Well congratulations. You got there in the end mate. Pat yourself on the back.
and his brother commits no crime in passing him a gun
YES!!!
If bundy has a record, then his brother knows it, and breaks the law in passing Bundy a gun.
NO!! If Bundy DOESN'T TELL his brother about his record, then his brother can pass him the gun and argue he had a known clean history.
You should probably shut up now. Which I believe is your cue to write me ten thousand words.
If the person's background check comes back negatively, and you sell the gun, you get a nice, big, fat fine. If you do it enough, you get stripped of your license to sell firearms.
That measure ensures honest sellers do what they’re supposed to. But how do you address the guy whose alway getting he legitimate guns “stolen”? What do you do about the private parties who intend to sell guns to criminals?
But how do you address the guy whose alway getting he legitimate guns “stolen”? What do you do about the private parties who intend to sell guns to criminals?
Teach the Sermon on the Mount in school. We were told we can't do that anymore, so looks like you'll have to come up with something else.
But seriously, you cannot police everything. Sometimes the best anticdote was something you should have done long ago. For example, making logical laws for border patrol to enforce and actually enforce them, teach your kids good values, and background check every person who wants to be in the forefront of your culture to make sure their allegiances are to America, etc.
But we didn't do that. Now we have hundreds of millions of guns, maybe a billion, and many in the hands of people not taught good values, not legally here, gangs, cartel types, etc.
My best answer? If they get em, I get em. It's too late for any of the above I mentioned.
I support common sense measures agreed upon by common sense people. The words common sense and the Left go together like oil & water.
If the real reasons for more gun control legislation is to save lives, why doesn't the Left push for back ground checks in public places that sell alcohol to possible repeat DWI offenders?
I don't want this, but if the goal is to save lives with all this anti Gun rhetoric, Democrats 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? 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.
The Left could not care less about saving lives. Their final goal is to take our guns.
They always spew 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.
Demonstrating the level of concern had by Democrats for public alcohol consumption is not eh same as presenting a gun law or law enforcement measure that you would support.
Common sense laws agreed upon by common sense people is fine, but what is an example?
Common sense laws are already on the books, and for any NEW laws pushed by the anti Gun Left, there would have to be common sense agreement from both sides.
I am fine with laws that prevent citizens from getting large military weapons that could never be used for hunting, target shooting or home protection.
