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.
Would gun control have prevented the Parkland shooting?
If so, what specific gun control measures would have to have been in place and are they reasonable under the 2nd Amendment? If no, what could have prevented it?
Keep in mind the details we know about the 39 calls to police and the other red flags, as well as the role of the police in school shootings.
The man had a horrible record of attitude and emotional problems. It should have been illegal for him to have or purchase a gun, let alone an assault weapon, a weapon intended to kill at a rapid rate. It may not have "prevented" the Parkland shooting, but, several dead school kids that are dead now, would, likely, STILL be alive. A deputy that knew he was hopelessly outgunned would likely have entered the building had he thought he had a CHANCE. (Not trying to justify him/them, but, facts are facts.)
Obviously he shouldn't have had access to guns, but don't you think that's more of a failure on the police's part than gun accessibility? They had at least 1 perfect opportunity to Baker Act him besides all the other calls (a few from his own mother) that they ignored. (The man had a horrible record of attitude and emotional problems)
A deputy that knew he was hopelessly outgunned would likely have entered the building had he thought he had a CHANCE
A armed deputy (and more importantly, the armed school resource officer who was already inside) has an extremely good chance to stop any shooter given their training and experience. A police service weapon is only "outgunned" in the terms of caliber by a 10-round capacity, semi-automatic AR-15. I would say it's extremely unlikely a deputy would have been harmed in the confrontation, and the fact that there were 3 armed and trained deputies present made the hesitation even more inexcusable.
My problem with your comments are that you blame the Gun as if any other gun would have made it better somehow. The Deputy Sheriff should be held liable for failing to protect the children he was hired to protect because of his cowardice. He had a firearm just as capable as the gunman and easier to handle. He was suppose to be a trained professional and should have at least engaged the shooter which would have diverted the gunman's attention saving lives. I work at a hospital where our security wear bullet proof vests and run to the conflict not outside away from it.
How was the Deputy "hopelessly outgunned" as you claim? A hand gun is larger in caliber easier to handle in close quarter's one bullet hitting the perpetrator would have brought the situation to an end.
It was liberal policies that protected him from law enforcement. We wouldn't want a psychopath's college future ruined by going to prison before he killed 17 people.
It depends upon what kind of gun control you’re talking about. Nibbling around the edges and calling it gun control, doesn’t do a thing. Full on gun control, however, will do lots.
As a matter of fact, that’s a great name for the law – The Full On Gun Control Act.
My mom had it right.. When I was 12, I won a Daisy BB gun at a raffle. My mom let me keep as long as I was responsible with it.. And, for the most part, I was.. Of course, I let my friends shoot it.. They weren't responsible AT ALL.. They shot out windows and killed some cats. But I couldn't be held accountable for their behavior, could I??
Well, my mom thought I could, and she took the gun away.. So, in her honor, I'm gonna change the name to Mom's Full On Gun Control Act..
I AM a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.. But, if our friends can't BE responsible with firearms, even if WE personally are, we can take 'em away.. The 2nd Amendment CAN be amended.
But I couldn't be held accountable for their behavior, could I??
It was YOUR gun. You are responsible for YOUR gun. Most people don't give their guns to idiots because most people, such as myself, are more responsible then that. Glad your law wouldn't affect me. More in line with your example would be a law that punishes gun owners whose stolen guns were used in a murder but never reported stolen. I would support that kind of law as it puts responsibility where it belongs.
So, in her honor, I'm gonna change the name to Mom's Full On Gun Control Act..
There would be quite a bit less gun violence in this country if people didn't hold the twisted notion that the government is or should be like a parent.
if our friends can't BE responsible with firearms, even if WE personally are, we can take 'em away.
By what logic do you get to punish me because you are a fuck up?
The 2nd Amendment CAN be amended.
Not in the foreseeable future it can't, thank God.
So according to your ideology everything that 1 in a million people abuse and kill someone with should be outlawed. The idiocracy of that would mean no guns, knives, hammers, cars, and i'm sure hundreds of other everyday items.
It is always wrong to oppress people and punish the many due to the actions of a very few. I don't know in what world view other than the military that is okay.
Hey man, I agree with your argument for the most part however if the 2nd amendment can be amended when will the issue be resolved because everyone involved in the amending will have their opinions and expect their opinions to be encapsulated in the amendment? Another point is we are talking about politicians on both sides of the debate and they each have their personal agenda, this will be another roadblock to contend with. And here is the unknown factor which is a probability - on a scale of o 1-10 probably around 5 - what about the responsible people who suffer traumatic events which cause them to become embittered and seek revenge of some sort, sad and true we have teenagers suffering cyber-bullying and other atrocities which have a dangerous impact on their psyche etc. For those of us who are not in the seats of authority it's easy to give quick witted solutions to a very complex problem, but dealing with the inherent "person" problem is going to take far more than a few laws and amendments to effect the problems we face. Why not just ban guns altogether? Very noble idea but it won't stop people killing. And what about the people who enjoy hunting should they be banned from a sport they enjoy? Stopping people from enjoying their hobbies because of a few bad apples who ruin the environment for others is unfair. The same argument goes for weekend warriors who enjoy time at the gun range. Why not lower the price for professionals help. I.e psychologists lower their fees to give assistance to people who are mentally unstable. The problem isn't the guns, it is the people who are doing the killing, and the murderers are spiritually, emotionally and mentally unstable. They are unstable both in spirit and soul. To stop a murderer from murdering they need real help, but here is another problem the cost to get real help is really expensive, so what are they to do? Just another perspective to look at this difficult situation from.
Please explain to the audience what all has to happen to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Then pause for a second to see if you can hear my laughter from all the way in Middle America.
If there were guns or weren't guns, if he wanted to commit an act of crime that bad he would have tried another way. Look in the majority of countries where all guns are illegal(terrible idea btw), there are mass knife attacks much worse than the Parkland shooting. And there have been studies after studies by very democratic sources that prove that if guns were made illegal, there would be much more gun deaths than there already are.
Crazy AL I was not aware that an UZI was used in the Parkland Shooting but your Confusion is understood ! Progressives get lost when they cannot defend their position on wanting weapons banned !!!!!!
The Democrats in the supreme court don't claim to want assault weapons. The mask is off. They openly say ALL weapons now. Free speech is next. Last, you'll wind up in Oceania....
The government doesn't do anything competently what would make anyone think that they could some how prevent murder. That can only be done by someone with intimate knowledge that a murder could be eminent. The government was given this information and failed to even check on it. Which translates to the fact that government passes all kinds of laws and if they as a group can profit somehow from them they act. If not oh well. There was nothing to gain prior to the murders no action but now the Dem's can try to buy free votes with a promise of "stopping gun violence" which is just an impossible political lie to fool the weak minded people of the country.
Increased gun contol is just a gateway for complete gun control and in combination with the direction liberals are trying to take the country and being openly supportive of socialism, that would be very dangerous. Weed used to be illegal everywhere. Guess what, people still got it. If someone truly wants to do harm he or she wil find a way with or without a gun. If liberals had their way the National Guard would be kicking down doors taking peoples weapons by force.