CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.
Will getting rid of gun violence in the USA fix everything?
Gun control will prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns, which will lower gun violence but not eliminate it. But if we get rid of the criminal guns as well, then we can get rid of gun violence. Is the sole elimination of gun violence going to fix everything?
I'm not for banning all guns, however gun regulation to attempt to get it out of the hands of the criminals and only allow it for the innocent would be a good thing. I find it funny how people more on the right of the issue keep pointing out that the problem is criminals getting their guns. Then why not allow only those who are innocent and sane to get guns? As far as automatic rifles and what not, if we sow citizens to get these and walk around with them, then we should also allow the police to be able to do the same, and require safety training for higher grade weapons. Combatting gun violence will only solve gun violence but same goes with any political issue.
We have regulations to prevent criminals from getting guns, what we don't have is enforcement. The reason we don't have enforcement is because we constantly get sidetracked trying to figure out what new laws to add instead of acting on the laws that we do have.
There is an entire agency used to control guns: the ATF. Have you heard of NICS? The ATF requires all gun sellers to use NICS to do a background check before selling a gun. And all guns need to have a serial number to be considered legal. Only licensed dealers can sell guns. There are many guns that are being used today that are not legal according to the laws of today.
First of all I said I'm not totally sure how I feel about banning assault rifles. Second of all , so you are saying that we are to preoccupied making new laws to enforce gun regulation? Wouldn't that law being enforcing gun regulation?
I am sorry, but I use the word law and regulation interchangeably, or meaning the same thing, like synonyms. A law/regulation being on the books does not mean that it is being enforced, it just means it exists. It means that people could theoretically be punished because of it. If we do not have our law enforcement agencies acting on the laws/regulations, then the laws have no affect. If we are not enforcing the laws, then adding new laws will not change anything. But, if we add laws now innocent people might be in violation if the law enforcement agencies decide to actually act on the laws.
Adding laws doesn't necessarily take away from enforcing laws. If I'm not mistaken it is the executive branch that tries to enforce laws, and the legislative branch that adds or repeals laws, correct? So how does adding laws make enforcing them harder. In what way are the laws being poorly enforced? What is your argument of prelavent gun violence being a,product of poorly enforced laws to not quality laws already placed?
see the problem with this debate is that it's too locked.
I definetly don't think that simply getting rid of gun violence will fix EVERYTHING, but I also don't believe it'll get worse.
It's more like this for me: If we could magically get rid of 'gun violence' we'd be slightly better off. There would be less gun related deaths, and since we didn't nesccesarily get rid of guns, we got rid of the violence, the people who would have been doing the gun crimes now don't exist so they won't switch to anoter method to do crime, but there is still hella problems in this country that don't relate to gun violence in anyway.
Obesity
Poverty
Scarcity
& for the sake of the fact that gun violence is null, there'll still be other means of violence.
In some regard I feel as if the number of gun related crimes probably keeps the other kinds of crimes down also, if a potential perpertrator gets shot at a young age, for instance.
Gun violence is bad and we need to reduce it, but banning firearms will not solve anything. Chicago has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the country, and it is still murder capital USA.
this isn't about reducing violence, it's about reducing specifically gun violence. He/she's not saying that we actually can eliminate gun violence but he/she's saying if we could, would it fix america.
It's very obvious that if violence in genral was cured that everything would be better off.
What I am saying is that we should focus on all violence because gun violence is motivated by the same thing. Just focusing on violence caused by guns will not fix anything because people will still want to commit acts of violence just with something else as the tool.
We'll never be able to cure humanity of violence, unless you want to live in the concept of an overpowering communist government in an effort of illegalizing all violence. Which you don't strike me as that type. Gun violence is deadlier than other types of violence and all we could do with violence is lessen it any way we can. Regulating guns in a smart way will help.
The proposal to get rid of guns to get rid of gun violence will only lead to more violence because violent people will know they can't get shot by their victims. Thus, you will create more violence.
Nobody, not even me. I didn't say you wanted to get rid of guns. I said the general idea of getting rid of guns. You haven't actually proposed any ideas, only the extremely vague concept that you ate open to something.
The proposal to get rid of guns to get rid of gun violence will only lead to more violence because violent people will know they can't get shot by their victims. Thus, you will create more violence.
Nobody, not even me. I didn't say you wanted to get rid of guns. I said the general idea of getting rid of guns. You haven't actually proposed any ideas, only the extremely vague concept that you ate open to something.
Hmm interesting...
I do think that whatever higher grade weapons we do allow we should require police to have with them, the highest we do allow that is. I do think the higher grade weapons definitely should require more regulation like training and what not before someone can buy it.
How is the classification higher grade not completely vague? No one but you uses that terminology. You don't even know what you mean by it, or at least you haven't specified.
I thought you would figure out by now that what I mean by higher grade is more efficient, more dangerous, more deadly, better, etc, am I really the only one who uses it? Hmmm. I meant more higher grade then the police is already required to have.
I thought you would figure out by now that what I mean by higher grade is more efficient, more dangerous, more deadly, better, etc, am I really the only one who uses it? Hmmm. I meant more higher grade then the police is already required to have.
And how will you get all the unregistered illegally bought guns that don't come with receipts and all serial numbers have been removed making them untraceable? You can get the guns from the good guys but never the bad guys. So let the good guys keep theirs.
Just eliminating gun violence will not prevent crime. Other crime will go up when criminals know they can attack someone without there being a chance of getting shot by the victim.
We can combat gun violence without taking away the means for people to defend themselves. We should look at how much crime goes up to how much murder will go down. Robert and theft doesn't concern me as much as murder, criminals will always be able to get their guns but making it only available to them through black market only will make it harder for them.
You would be happy living in a place where you have to look over your shoulder all the time not knowing if someone will do harm to you, but won't kill you. Other people aren't. People work hard to earn what they have, we shouldn't make it easier for someone else to take it away.
Since you are not concerned about people keeping their own stuff, are you concerned with assault and other violent crimes?
I didn't say I wasn't concerned about those things, I said I am more concerned with murder. I'd prefer my possessions taken than my life. I don't think robbery is right but it's less important than murder.
This is exactly what I said we should look at earlier. This is where it will get really subjective. Violent crimes and robbery causes disorder, which threatens societies. I would say personally the bad trade off would be when violent crimes become to chaotic for society, which is also subjective. However I don't see why people should walk around with assault rifles when the police can't even do that. Some gun regulation is doable before a bad trade off is what I am saying.
The police can carry assault rifles, and do sometimes. Most people are not allowed to carry assault rifles. Citizens have not been given more rights to carry guns than police, I think you need to recheck where you heard that from. People are not safer when guns are banned, that is a misconception that anti gun people like to propagate.
First of all m not saying people are allowed assault rifles, but my argument for banning it possibly since people like yourself don't want them banned. Unless you are stepping back from that stance? If most police don't carry them and we legalize them citizens, then I say the police should be required to carry them for those that may get their hands on them to commit crime so the police can protect themselves.
From your argument it sounds like you are accusing me of wanting to unban something that its banned. I want our rights to not change. Once we start taking away rights they don't come back. I don't see a problem with our current gun situation that can be fixed by a law that bans guns, and I don't think you have provides anything to change anyone's mind.
Then why are you arguing against the arguments I do have that we may possibly need to keep automatic assault and semi automatic weapons to stay banned or to be banned this whole time? If the guns I'm arguing that may need to stay banned are already banned and you don't want to change that why have you been arguing with me about it?
Possibly get rid of higher grade weapons. I'm not totally certain on how I feel about those but a line somewhere has to be drawn. The means of defense I support is firearms, same as you, as well as the police.
What if banning assault rifles doesn't lower gun violence much at all? I don't think that they are used much to kill people. It is much easier to use a hand gun. In fact, the FBI found out it is more likely that a club or hammer will be used to kill a child than an assault rifle, so we are not talking about a large decrease in violence.
I don't doubt that the amount of gun violence associated with assault rifles are smaller, but violence associated with such guns has deadlier consequences.
That's news to me. You mean to tell me that a bullet fired from an assault rifle is deadlier than a bullet fired from a semi automatic handgun? You may be dumber than I originally thought
Well I was talking about higher grade weapons not just assault rifles, YOU steered it towards just assault rifles. I'd possibly consider automatic handguns higher grade weapons.
you may be dumber than I originally thought
Well I am glad we established who the bigger person is being here.
We have established who the bigger person is here, and it is not you. I said semi automatic handguns, and you brought up automatic handguns, which is totally different. How is a bullet fired from a higher grade weapon any deadlier than a bullet fired from a lower grade weapon?
Forcing me to use a fake language to classify guns in a way no one else does just so that you can understand the conversation makes you the lesser being.
Higher grade weapons can cause more damage, automatic guns shoot more bullets in quicker time, a normal handgun v.s. an automatic handgun, the person with the automatic will be better armed. You are the one assuming that I think bullets from one gun is more powerful than bullets from another gun, when I am talking about guns not bullets. Recheck our debate you brought up automatic handguns first.
Forcing people to classify guns in a certain way is silly and you are doing so by putting words in my mouth, assuming that I was saying automatic handguns are not as dangerous as automatic rifles and arguing with me as if I said as such when I didn't.
That was you. I put no words in your mouth. You refuse to debate unless I use your exact terminology. By saying higher grade, which no one else uses, you classify guns into different groups, that's how words work, learn to read.
Recheck our debate you brought up automatic handguns first.
You are correct that I am the first one to use the words automatic handguns, but the word semi came before it, you go recheck. You are the first person to leave off the semi which is what I was against. Having a word in front of other words changes the context and meaning, learn to read.
The Aurora shooter used a semi automatic rifle. The Newtown shooter used semi automatic handguns. Can you even name an incident where a shooter used an automatic gun? A semi automatic weapon can fire many bullets, it all depends on how well trained/motivated the shooter is.
I have no idea what you mean by a higher grade weapon. If it is a weapon that can cause more damage, it sounds like all guns are higher grade.
Assault rifles that other people are talking about banning are semi automatic.
How am I refusing to debate? I am correcting you for better communication not of spite. You have a problem with communication?
Ohhh sooooorrryy I left semi out, this is soooooo horrible compared to the things I had to correct you on, I guess the bigger person should be telling other people that they are stupid and don't know how to read right? Why are you so bitter at me? What did I do to you? What's with the name calling and what not? I can understand if in the middle of a debate it gets to that point when one person feels like the other is being idiotic as it happens all the time in debate which isn't right but more understandable, but when you start off that way it tells me you have an irrational hatred for me. I have been nothing but civil with you on this. By higher grade weapons I mean weapons typically more damaging potentially. Semi automatics are more damaging than pistols, and automatics are more damaging than semi-automatics. Some weapons are more daming than others. By higher grade I mean higher grade relative to pistols. Not automatic, or semiautomatic pistols, normal pistols. Yes by chance the guns have been semi-automatic, imagine if automatics were used? It's not about how much violence is resulting its also about how consequential certain guns can be. If semi automatics can potentially have a quicker fire rate then less than guns that aren't automatic at all then they are more dangerous potentially.
There is a huge difference between semi automatic and automatic. I pointed out that you changing what I said makes a major difference and you insulted me by telling me that I was the one who said it first, and I hope you noticed that I did not attack you for leaving out the semi until after you told me that I was the one who used it first. After reading your last post it is clear that you don't have much knowledge about guns. I am upset with you because you don't know about guns and you are attempting to make statements about them that affect everyone. I am also upset with you because you are on a debate website and you don't have any real stances. You say if X, you believe Y, and otherwise you believe Z, so I can't debate you because you don't even know what you think.
You are the one who claimed I said the bullets of automatic rifles are more deadlier than semi-automatic guns bullets, I never said anything about semi-automatic before then, thus you were changing what I said and I didn't take it as an insult. Miscommunication and not getting what your oppenent is saying right isn't reason to insult Someone. Idc but I somehow think you are doing it out of spite. It's not like you been trolling me because you love me or something... If you do, assuming you are a guy I don't roll that way sorry.
I could know more about guns than I do, but if my problem is ignorance then you should be able to prove me wrong. Neither you or I are politicians so we prolly don't know nearly as much about politics than actual politicians so why are we even debating gun politics?
I wouldn't debate without having SOME opinion, and my opinion is smart gun regulation is needed, I'm even arguing for gun regulations we already have because others do disagree with it. I have arguments to why automatics and semi-automatics may possibly need to be banned, but I'm not completely convinced of it. Tell me something I'm ignorant about, tell me how it actually is, cite yourself, and guess what I'll educate myself.
Unfortunately you are too uninformed about guns for me to even begin to explain what you are wrong about.
You proved yourself wrong first. Then I came in and proved you wrong even more. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean you haven't lost. The only thing you have been firm about is that you haven't lost.
You used the word deadlier. Deadlier means more people dead. The power of the bullet is the only determining factor in a person dying. For instance, the coroner does not care about what gun is used, he only cares about the size of the bullet wound.
Unfortunately you are too uninformed about guns for me to even begin to explain what you are wrong about.
What is it that I am ignorant about? And in what way is my ignorance holding me back? Am I claiming something out of ignorance, does some statistics or something back you up and not me? Tell me and cite yourself, the only ignorance I am aware of was my unfamiliarity of terminology (like the difference between semi auto and auto). Nobody has all the facts but if anyone claims any facts they have to cite themselves and explain how these facts favor their opinion.
You proved yourself wrong first. Then I came in and proved you wrong even more. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean you haven't lost. The only thing you have been firm about is that you haven't lost.
When? Last time you claimed this you were being dishonest.
You used the word deadlier. Deadlier means more people dead. The power of the bullet is the only determining factor in a person dying. For instance, the coroner does not care about what gun is used, he only cares about the size of the bullet wound.
However let's say hypothetically you have a gun that shoots bullets more powerful than any other BUT it has the shitties fire rate ever with only one bullet an hour, meaning after you fire a bullet, you have to wait an hour to fire the next. Which would be better for killing multiple people? The gun that shoots powerful bullets once an hour OR a gun that can shoot a bullet every 5 seconds?
You don't seem to understand how bullets work. You don't seem to know how guns work. You don't know the different types of guns. I don't know if you know what caliber means. These aren't even facts that I can cite because it is basic gun knowledge. You don't have a grasp on the item you want to regulate.
Hypothetically let's say you have a gun that shoots a bullet that kills 100 thousand people, but you can only fire it once an hour. Is it less deadly than an automatic rifle that can fire at maybe a thousand? Most of the time in these random mass shootings there are not a lot of victims. If the super gun shot 15 people it could be way worse because the guy could just run away and come back to shoot another 15 later.
No because when you think about it, what about all of the violence by items like knives or other blunt objects like baseball bats or crowbars etc. So i would think that if you take away gun violence then people would still get beaten to death or stabbed to death more often.
Its Simple, taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding, god fearing citizens will not take them out of the hands of lawless, reckless criminals. Weed is illeagal, but yet it runs rampant throughout our country
Well take a look at Switzerland. They are ranked 3rd in the highest gun ownership in the world. There crime rates are very low. To take things into account, Switzerland's pop. is lesser compared to the U.S., which means you are likely to find guns in every household.
If you take away a gun then guys decide to use anything else. Cars, knifes, bombs, in extreme cases arrows, etc. It will obviously cut gun violence but if a guy somwhow get a light machine gun from a foriegn country or something do you know how much destruction he can cause? A lot. Then the cops shoot him down. Then some guy says "How come he can have a gun? Are we not equal here?". Then we have an equality debate and then we have a 2nd amendment 2.0 or something crazy like that.
Without guns people are defenceless, and gangs will be encouraged to use more violance as guns would be banned. However, it would not stop the gangs themselves; no, the gangs would just get guns smuggled illegali, so I disagree!
