Do mentally stable people have the right to own guns? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Do mentally stable people have the right to own guns?
in Politics

I say yes. For a mentally stable person 0 years old or older to exchange money for gun safety trainining is a human right. Why should the government be armed, but citizens not? That is unconstitutional. Read the 2nd Amendment before you reply.
George_Horse
About Persuade Me

Persuaded Argument

  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    Winning Argument ✓
    @WordsMatter

     "I pose the question because I AM a psychologist and in all of my training there has never been anything that tells you when you can KNOW an individual will commit a crime with a firearm unless they directly tell you."

    So you're a psychologist?

    Are you anti law minded, pro criminal/ offender minded, and a BLM supporter at the same time as well? 
    Zombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @YeshuaBought the constitution was made in an era without assult rifles
    Zombieguy1987
  • @cheesycheese People have the right to protect themselves against a bloated government. If citizens can't be armed, NO ONE can.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • How do you define "mentally stable" in the legal sense? Who would you consider "mentally unstable"?

    The general rule of thumb in civilized societies in these matters is the requirement for the ability to operate the device while maintaining enough degree of control over it to consistently avoid misusing it. This is the reason, for example, that in order to legally be able to drive a car, you must be:
    1) Mature (age requirement).
    2) Sober (prohibited drunk driving).
    3) Aware of your surroundings (eyesight requirements).
    4) Devoid of compromising history of driving (restriction on the number of points and violations allowed).
    And so on.

    Similarly, you should be able to own and use guns if you are mature, sober, aware of your surroundings and devoid of compromising history of gun usage. If you have a certain mental disorder, then what defines whether it impacts your right to own and use guns is whether that disorder has a direct influence on your decision-making and gun usage practice. If your disorder simply makes you, say, strongly claustrophobic, then you should be able to operate guns in open spaces, but not in closed areas. If your disorder makes your hands shake, then you should only be able to use guns in self-defense when in the presence of other individuals. If your disorder makes you paranoid, seeing enemies that are out to get you everywhere, then you probably should not be able to own guns at all.

    As per 2nd Amendment, it should be legal for a resident to, for example, own a tank with ammunition, barring the prohibitive conditions. And while it is true that this resident can deal an untold amount of damage with that tank before he/she is subdued by the law enforcement, this is more indicative of the necessity to reform our law enforcement agencies, than of the necessity to take people's constitutional freedoms away. Eventually, everyone will be able to assemble makeshift nuclear weapons on their kitchens anyway, so it is better to go through a short volatile period now and come to the model that works - than to try to contain the situation for the sake of "security", only to have it explode at the stage where it will be too late to try to enforce the law. Perhaps we are already past that stage, however, and in this case our future looks somewhat bleak.

    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar What a stupid question, stop trolling.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I think it's futile to think that restricting guns from "mentally unstable" people will curb gun violence, or even stop a single mass shooting. I tend to see that the evidence that someone isn't mentally sound enough to own a firearm is the mass shooting itself. You can't put the cart in front of the horse.
  • @cheesycheese ;
    The United States Constitution was written in a time of Cannon and scattershot. So yes that is an time of assault weapon. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter:

    The offenders non use of any  weapon would GREATLY reduce their negative influences on a peaceful society wouldn't it? 

    To me, when offenders commit crimes with weapons, they are the ones who are placing themselves before everyone else? 
  • @TTKDB again putting the cart before the horse. Obviously if an offender doesn't use a weapon they can't commit a shooting, but before the shooting occurr how do you know who is going to be an offender 
    Polaris95Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar ;

    Not in an disagreement of you view, however what needs to be considered and addressed by Yeshabought is when she is suggesting for a group of people who are licensed by the state to have control over distribution of a common defense to the general welfare. The people to whom she wish delegate authority of power have by principle already been called on by legal precedent to state mental competence held a faltering defense to stability. Fire-arm are a common defense to general welfare and are a United State within constitutional right, not a 2nd Amendment right only the amendment or change was made on common defense to support the creation of judicial court servants to law by state. Basically police and state soldiers. 

  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "again putting the cart before the horse. Obviously if an offender doesn't use a weapon they can't commit a shooting, but before the shooting occurr how do you know who is going to be an offender"

    Any offender knows what they are going to use before they commit a crime, being that their illegal actions are gathered up post crime after post crime, year after year? 

    Again, the offenders continue to place themselves before the rest of society, year after year. 
  • Sorry Yeshabought after reading more closely you are answering a question you created with a undisclosed purpose. When citing the United States Constitutional law as authority it should be made clear to you. A person must demonstrate a constant diligent to defend, protect and preserve the united state held by constitutional separation in order to hold the self-evident right as personal human right.


    Again this is delegated by order and principle, the 1st. Amendment to the united states constitution gives rise to the 2nd change. We the people are shown as fact 1st there is free-speech, and filed grievance. There is free-Press, and filed grievance. There is free-religion, and filed grievance.
  • @TTKDB if someone uses a gun to murder they are barred from legally obtaining a firearm after that. The offender's thought process is irrelevant here because we are talking about 3rd parties, deciding that "mentally unstable" people can't own firearms. How do you, specifically you, know what person with depression is going to go on a shooting spree and which will not, before the shooting spree happens?
    Polaris95
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter:

    "How do you, specifically you, know what person with depression is going to go on a shooting spree and which will not, before the shooting spree happens?"

    You could reach to an actual phycologist, crisis counselor, or psychiatrist to help you with your posed question? 


  • @TTKDB no, you are arguing that there is a way to do this. Show me that way
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "no, you are arguing that there is a way to do this. Show me that way"

    Again, you could reach to an actual phycologist, crisis counselor, or psychiatrist in your locality, to help you with your posed question?

    They are the qualified individuals who can answer your questions for you? 

    You coming to the internet to pose this sort of a question in a debate forum, is kind of odd and out of place one might think? 

    "know what person with depression is going to go on a shooting spree and which will not, before the shooting spree happens?"

    Here you go:

    https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/







  • Though I believe the question may intend to ask, "Should mentally stable people have the right to own guns," it is worded as though it is asking if mentally stable people "currently" have the right to own guns, so I will answer that question. The answer to that depends on where you live. Here in Canada the answer is complicated. I cannot say yes as a blanket statement, because that would imply all guns. The answer is that some guns can be legally owned by mentally stable Canadians, but being mentally stable is not the only requirement of course. I could also mention that mentally unstable Canadians can also own guns legally, so long as their instability is not one that would increase their chances substantially, and knowingly to the proper authoratative figures, of becoming a danger to those around them when using the weapon. However, I'm not going to add that to the statement because that can be true independant of the statement I am making, though it would be different if the question was whether or not mentally stable people alone have the right.The answer to the question at hand then is yes. Mentally stable people in Canada have the right to own certain guns, so long as they meet the other requirements as constituted by Canadian gun laws. If you substitute the word "Canadian(s)" with "American(s)" the same statement, to the best of my knowledge, holds true for the laws respective to the United States of America.
  • @TTKDB I pose the question because I AM a psychologist and in all of my training there has never been anything that tells you when you can KNOW an individual will commit a crime with a firearm unless they directly tell you.
  • @WordsMatter How Christian of you. Mental patients don't have the right to have guns. My right to live is more important.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CouleeMan Mental patients don't have the right to have guns. My right to live is more important.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @John_C_87 I DON'T have to disclose a purpose.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought good thing I'm not a Christian and you're not a lawmaker
    Polaris95Zombieguy1987Oppolzer
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    So you're a psychologist? 

    Are you anti law, (pro offender, depending on what laws that get to be broken?) and a BLM supporter as well? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB I sure am, but FYI "psychologist" isn't a job title or even someone who has to specialize in mental illness. It just denotes someone with higher education in psychology. You were probably looking for the terms psychiatrist, social worker, or therapist, all jobs that require training in psychology and work with populations that suffer from mental illness.

     you post idea after idea in each thread and have never once offered any source material or even an argument based on logic. Maybe this will help. http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/
  • @WordsMatter Fact: Mental patients don't have the right to have gun when we have a phucking SHOOTING problem, but I do have the right to live.
    Zombieguy1987
  • And we’re back
    Yes, people that are mentally sound (unlike some on this site) are able to own a weapon. However, there are plenty of ways for people that have restricted access to guns to get guns.
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • @AmericanFurryBoy Do you support any regulations on the gun industry?
  • A mentally stable person wouldn’t buy a gun so they could defend themself because it would better to go to iceland and not have to worry about being murdered at all
    Zombieguy1987
  • The point is you already have declared a purpose. A human right to live is a liberty that is imposed on others as something people feel as right and not wrong. A constitutional right to common defense is a declaration of self-responsibility of obstacle of legal precedent and basic principle set before us all as united state, as right not wrong.

    The Constitutional right for a citizen as defender of United State by constitution can declare common defense to the ownership of fire-arm. It is not a 2nd Amendment Right at all, it is something else, other than that, something with a legal precedent as it came first in creation, There are two inalienable rights at work by declaration of Constitutional and Amended change of basic principle combined with legal precedent as shared right. What you’re explaining by use of words is the 2nd Amendment as a right for assembly to self-govern fire-arm as militia is the single person Constitutional right, as United States Constitutional right to self-govern by declaration of Independence but not create organized militia .

    The focus under 2nd Amendment, is it can be described that a group of people that including Doctors and other professionals can simply use a practice, by licensee of state, to be the weapon of choice brought to bear against the common welfare for the purpose of basic harm. The 2nd Amendment also sets that legislation can be the weapon of bear-arm used either also as right or wrong. Meaning the Judicial separation has a place as weapon by the scheme of general welfare as united state.

    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    So you'll answer the; "So you're a psychologist question,"

    And then follow it up with this verbiage; 

    "sure am, but FYI "psychologist" isn't a job title or even someone who has to specialize in mental illness. It just denotes someone with higher education in psychology. You were probably looking for the terms psychiatrist, social worker, or therapist, all jobs that require training in psychology and work with populations that suffer from mental illness.

     you post idea after idea in each thread and have never once offered any source material or even an argument based on logic. Maybe this will help."

    Can you please answer the other questions you've left untouched? 

    @WordsMatter

    Are you anti law, (pro offender, depending on what laws that get to be broken?) and a BLM supporter as well? 






    AmericanFurryBoyZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    To be a psychologist;

    "From Capella University;

    First, you will need a bachelor's degree (4 to 5 years), which teaches the fundamentals of psychology. After that, you will need a master's degree (2 to 3 years), which can qualify you to practice in the field as a case manager, employment specialist, or social worker. Then, most state licensing boards require a doctorate (4 to 7 years). The type of doctoral degree you choose––either a Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) or Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology (PhD)––will depend on your career goals. Many states also require post-doctoral training equivalent to about 1 year of work.

    While there are several excellent psychology career options that do not require as many years of education as it takes to become a licensed clinical psychologist, the benefits of doing so — including the satisfaction of helping others and a higher salary — can compensate for the additional years of education it will require."

  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    Some excerpts from the website you shared, Part 1,

    "5 tips to help you win every debate round:

    1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself.  Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours!  A common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well.  Take into account the judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point.  This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, shaking her head) that she understands you.
    2. Always think comparatively.  Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said.  If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].  For both sides, the most effective way to do this is through impact calculus.  You should always be weighing the relative importance of arguments, especially ultimate impact claims against each other.  A nuclear attack by terrorists because of the collapse of the Pakistani state is undoubtedly extremely bad, but is the spread of nuclear weapons to many more states even worse?  If you make comparative claims about why your arguments matter more than the other teams,  you can win the debate round even if the other team wins their arguments! A good flow will help you keep track of the arguments. Here is a sample flow chart.
    3. Always act like you’re winning, even if you’re not.  Composure, poise, ethos, whatever you want to call it is an essential skill in public speaking and in life in general.  This does not mean be arrogant!  Rather, it means that you should always display confidence in the arguments that your team is making.  Think about it this way – if the judge doesn’t think you believe in your own arguments, why should he be inclined believe them himself?"
  • @YeshuaBought if by mental patients you mean people who are institutionalized because of a mental state that is dangerous, well of course they don't have the right to own guns, but that's because that's the rules of said institution, and because the relevant authority figures know they are dangerous. If they are patients in the sense that they are receiving counseling from a psychiatrist, then that involves a very wide range of people. Nothing is stopping a person who meets with a professional to work on their mental health from claiming that they are mentally healthy, and to be allowed to carry a gun. Further, are you going to tell me that if someone meets with a psychologist for their ADHD that they don't have the right to own a gun simply because they are a patient that meets a professional for reasons regarding their mind? Because according to your description that would be the case. Sorry that doesn't hold up. Review your statement next time to avoid ambiguity. You need to specify what kind of "mental patients" you are referring to, because the phrase "mental patient" in it's current form just means someone who has use of their brain and visits with a healthcare professional. That describes almost all people on this planet.
    AmericanFurryBoyZombieguy1987
  • @John_C_87 This debate is about guns. You will stay on topic or be muted.
    Zombieguy1987AmericanFurryBoy
  • @CouleeMan What I mean is anyone with a mental health diagnosis. They don't have the right to have guns because meds can stop working.
  • AlecAlec 56 Pts
    YeshuaBought

    Are you moving right wing on guns?  You didn't respond to my debate on guns:

    https://www.debateart.com/debates/385

    You said, "For a mentally stable person 0 years old or older to exchange money for gun safety trainining is a human right. Why should the government be armed, but citizens not?"
    George_Horse
  • Yes they do. With proper background checks and screening, they should have the right to own firearms for hunting, or self-defense. I am against the proposals to ban semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, they are NOT assault rifles, they are standard semi-automatic firearms, for which they cannot be classed as "assault weapons" or "assault rifles". Conceive the idea if we were to put the word "assault" behind anything that could maim or kill an individual: Assault car, assault phone, assault hammer, assault pillow, assault belt, assault banana (yes a banana) assault nut, assault bread, and on and on with various objects capable of causing harm. Would it not be absurd? Could you imagine those things actually existing?
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @George_Horse

    You're arguing semantics and completely missing the point of the proposed ban to AR-15, there is no valid reason why a person requires an AR-15. It has a similar magazine capacity and on average a higher muzzle velocity then an M16, do you think people should be allowed to own military grade rifles? I suggest you read up on the reports released by doctors and trauma surgeons who have treated gun shot wounds from an AR (1), it might just change your opinion of this weapon. Not to mention you can easily get a hold of a 50 round clip for your AR-15 in most states, you're gonna sit there and tell me 50 rounds isn't a little excessive? Look, gun control is not about taking away the rights of people to own fire arms.I'm a liberal Californian and I still believe in people's right to own firearms, but something needs to be done and the longer we sit here and argue about irreverent things like what is and what isn't an "assault rife", the longer this country goes with a solution. The fact is there are things this country could be doing but for whatever reason *cough cough the gun lobby* we aren't doing them. Extended background checks, baring mentally ill and people on government watch lists from buying guns, waiting periods, closing the gun show loop hole, a national and modern gun registry, allowing the CDC to track gun deaths, the list goes on and on. All the things I just listed, and could list, in no way stop lawful citizens from owning guns, it just makes them wait a bit longer, and if they really cared about their right to own guns then they really shouldn't care should they? 
    George_Horse
  • McSloth said:
    @George_Horse

    You're arguing semantics and completely missing the point of the proposed ban to AR-15, there is no valid reason why a person requires an AR-15. It has a similar magazine capacity and on average a higher muzzle velocity then an M16, do you think people should be allowed to own military grade rifles? I suggest you read up on the reports released by doctors and trauma surgeons who have treated gun shot wounds from an AR (1), it might just change your opinion of this weapon. Not to mention you can easily get a hold of a 50 round clip for your AR-15 in most states, you're gonna sit there and tell me 50 rounds isn't a little excessive? Look, gun control is not about taking away the rights of people to own fire arms.I'm a liberal Californian and I still believe in people's right to own firearms, but something needs to be done and the longer we sit here and argue about irreverent things like what is and what isn't an "assault rife", the longer this country goes with a solution. The fact is there are things this country could be doing but for whatever reason *cough cough the gun lobby* we aren't doing them. Extended background checks, baring mentally ill and people on government watch lists from buying guns, waiting periods, closing the gun show loop hole, a national and modern gun registry, allowing the CDC to track gun deaths, the list goes on and on. All the things I just listed, and could list, in no way stop lawful citizens from owning guns, it just makes them wait a bit longer, and if they really cared about their right to own guns then they really shouldn't care should they? 
    Like I said, if they are mentally stable and fit, they should be able to handle and own those firearms. Simply because you are afraid of "30-round magazines" does not validate a reason to have them banned. I can own many ammunition clips for my handguns, and it still wouldn't stop me. I personally own a AR-15, and it has good performance, great accuracy, and it is reliable. I cannot see what is wrong in owning one, its a firearm, one bullet cannot kill one person unless it hits a vital area in the torso area, or the person's head, and I can assure you that these crazed mass shooters do not get combat training using their AR-15s. In most gun deaths, handguns are used, NOT AR-15s. You live in California, guess what? Even with semi-automatic rifles banned, you still had another mass shooting, so the ban didn't do !  :joy: It doesn't matter if you ban the AR-15, you don't need one to kill many people, because there will always be an alternative. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @McSloth

    There should not be a difference between "military-grade" and "non-military-grade" equipment in legal terms. The sentence "military-grade" merely states that the tool is of sufficient quality to be used by the deployed military personnel - it in itself does not contain anything that would indicate the necessity to let anyone else use that tool.

    One can kill far-far-far-more people with a well-planned attack performed with a full-scale truck, than with even the best assault rifle in the world, and the required CDL-license is relatively easy to obtain. If even required, given how easy it is, in theory, to hijack a truck. Shall we ban truck usage by civilians? If so, then say hi to the collapsed economy, as the majority of businesses immediately collapse due to the lack of reliable resource supply.

    I will not even talk about how much damage can be dealt with a civilian international airbus, or with construction explosives. Or, for that matter, with a few cups of chemical substances one can find at any high school chemistry lab.

    People are so afraid of the entities the media scaremonger about today, they miss the actual real dangers as a result. They are afraid of being shot with a $30,000 military grade assault rifle, but are okay with $5.000 5 ton pickup trucks blasting through highways at 80 mph speeds. When someone tells them that dozens thousands people die in car accidents every year, they say, "Well, driving is dangerous". But when they hear that some crazy person killed a dozen people with an assault rifle, then suddenly "Ban it, ban everything!" comes up.

    Einstein was right about the two infinite things...
    George_Horse
  • @MayCaesar

    You bring up a valid point about the issue of "military grade" weapons but we have to speak in terms of reality, and the reality is people are committing mass murder with guns in this country, not trucks and cars. If that were to change then obviously the conversation is going to have to change, but until that does what you're arguing is irrelevant. You're attempting to equate the reality of gun violence with a hypothetical issue with trucks and cars being used as weapons which is preposterous. What about everything I mentioned? Extended background checks, waiting periods, allowing the CDC to track gun crime etc. Do you really have a problem with these things? 
    George_Horse
  • @George_Horse

    Seconds matter in a mass shooting, and if the gunman needs to reload because his weapon only takes so many rounds, then maybe those few seconds allows someone's brother or mother to escape, that is the point of limiting magazine capacity. Imagine if that gunman had an AR-15 with an extended magazine, in those kinds of close quarters we would have seen a lot more dead I can promise you that, I would also be careful about laughing at the fact that 12 people were murdered in cold blood just because you believe it validates some argument of yours. Are you just going to drop everything else I mentioned? Do the gun control measures I suggested really scare you that much?
  • @McSloth

    When these things are done voluntarily by the weapon traders, then I have no problem with them. When they are enforced by the government, then I do have a problem.

    People are committing mass murder with trucks and cars in Europe. Nobody yells there, "Let us ban all trucks and cars!" The law must not be dictated by "what is actually happening"; it must be dictated by what can happen. The purpose of the law is to protect people's rights, and if the law only protects them from what is happening right now and not what will/can happen tomorrow, then this is not law - this is emotion.
    George_Horse
  • @YeshuaBought ;

    The part about read the 2nd Amendment is describing that the One Reason, the United State presented by Constitutional principle is the only the 2nd Amendment can insure a Constitutional Right to Common defense. That simply is not true it is what is most popularly believed to be true.
  • McSloth said:
    @George_Horse

    Seconds matter in a mass shooting, and if the gunman needs to reload because his weapon only takes so many rounds, then maybe those few seconds allows someone's brother or mother to escape, that is the point of limiting magazine capacity. Imagine if that gunman had an AR-15 with an extended magazine, in those kinds of close quarters we would have seen a lot more dead I can promise you that, I would also be careful about laughing at the fact that 12 people were murdered in cold blood just because you believe it validates some argument of yours. Are you just going to drop everything else I mentioned? Do the gun control measures I suggested really scare you that much?


    AGAIN, AR-15s are semi-automatic, it does not matter if they carry 30 rounds. Two people can carry out a mass shooting with shotguns and kill many, or they could use handguns, though those events are rare. I am wondering what is going on in your mind that makes you assume that 30 rounds is "too" much for a rifle. All what matters is the areas hit by the shooter with a firearm, a AR-15, handgun, or shotgun. If you're really going to continue to ramble on with pointless nonsense then I'm really going to consider ignoring you. You really don't reduce the possible number of fatalities in a shooting by limiting the magazine capacity, and they can't use a rifle, they could use far WORSE things to kill many people. 
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @McSloth

    Now, imagine if both the gunman AND some of his targets had AR-15-s. Personally, if I had a semi-automatic or a non-automatic rifle, I would not dare to engage someone with an automatic weapon - but if I myself had an automatic weapon, I could fight back, since I would see my chances as much higher.

    Somehow gun law advocates forget that the shooter is not the only part of the equation. There have been countless cases when someone was stopped from performing a mass shooting by another person with a gun - but those cases really do not get much media coverage, because they are boring: "A guy pulled out a gun and was shot". It is when an armed guy kills dozens defenseless people when the story gets viral - and ironically, it is then that people start advocating for harsh gun laws.

    Like I said above, Einstein's statement was a spot on. Logic is rarely a part of equation as far as political debates go.
    George_Horse
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 735 Pts
    edited December 2

    McSloth said:
    @George_Horse

    You're arguing semantics and completely missing the point of the proposed ban to AR-15, there is no valid reason why a person requires an AR-15.

    That isn't a valid reason for depriving someone of their rights.

    It has a similar magazine capacity and on average a higher muzzle velocity then an M16, do you think people should be allowed to own military grade rifles?

    Higher velocity?!?  How can two different rifles with identical upper recievers and barrels using the same ammo have different velocities?   Regardless, no military in world history has ever issued semi-automatic AR-15s to their troops.  They are NOT military grade firearms.

     I suggest you read up on the reports released by doctors and trauma surgeons who have treated gun shot wounds from an AR (1), it might just change your opinion of this weapon.

    An obviously biased article from an admitted gun banner isn't particularly persuasive.  All the author actually says about the 5.56mm is that it's noticably more powerful than most handgun rounds.  Compared to popular rifle rounds, it's rather anemic, which is why many states ban it's use for hunting anything larger than vermin.

    Not to mention you can easily get a hold of a 50 round clip for your AR-15 in most states, you're gonna sit there and tell me 50 rounds isn't a little excessive?


    Your opinion still isn't a valid reason for depriving someone of their rights.  If 50 rounds magazines were so effective, why wouldn't the military issue them?  There are no restrictions against belt-fed firearms.  If the number of rounds makes an attack more deadly, surely attackers are opting for firearms with 200 round belts, right?

    Look, gun control is not about taking away the rights of people to own fire arms.I'm a liberal Californian and I still believe in people's right to own firearms, but something needs to be done and the longer we sit here and argue about irreverent things like what is and what isn't an "assault rife", the longer this country goes with a solution.

    Why must something be done?  What is your end goal?

    The fact is there are things this country could be doing but for whatever reason *cough cough the gun lobby* we aren't doing them.

    Actually, it's the "civil rights" organizations like the ACLU that oppose real initiatives that might work to reduce gun violence, not 2nd amendment organizations.

    Extended background checks,

    Name an attack in which background checks weren't conducted and would have prevented the shooter from obtaining a firearm.

    baring  people on government watch lists from buying guns,


    There are no standards for putting people on the no-fly list and there is no process for taking one's name off the list even if it was erroneously entered, and there have been numerous bad entries.  The list includes a 2 year old, a 6 year old; even Ted Kennedy found himself on the list.

    waiting periods,

    We had a national waiting period, it was part of the Brady law.  There was no significant drop in crime when the federal waiting period went into effect, and no increase when the waiting period went away.

    closing the gun show loop hole,

    Name an attack that would have prevented if the so-called "gun show loop hole" were closed.

     a national and modern gun registry,

    Firearms owners are some of the most distrustful of intrusive government.  Governmental overreach is one of the main reasons a lot of people bought guns in the first place, particularly so-called "assault rifles".  When New York passed a law requiring all residents to registry their "assault weapons", very few people complied.  Nearly a million people refused to register their guns.

    allowing the CDC to track gun deaths,

    Why would the Center for DISEASE Control be tracking something that is not as disease?  The FBI, the nation's primary domestic law enforcement organization is the more logical and proper agency to track firearm homicides and the Consumer Product Safety Commission should track firearms accidents.

    All the things I just listed, and could list, in no way stop lawful citizens from owning guns, it just makes them wait a bit longer, and if they really cared about their right to own guns then they really shouldn't care should they?

    OTOH, none of the things you listed will have any significant impact on crime, they're just more infringements on a right that the Constitution says "will not be infringed".  I hope we can agree that there would still be murders and mass shootings even if every one of your suggestions were adopted.  After every mass shooting and every media-sensationalized murder or accident, there would be calls for ever more firearms restrictions, requirements, bans, etc.  Anti-gun people will never stop until all guns are banned.
    George_Horse
  • Case in point: a country with incredibly strict gun laws, Norway, witnessed arguably the most horrifying civilian mass shooting in human history. An island full of defenceless people, with police being slow to react, and with a trained gunman having a perfectly laid out plan in mind - resulted in a bloodbath.

    If just a few of those people had serious weapons... The attack might have ended up much quicker, and Breivik, instead of enjoying luxurious conditions by prison standards, would instead enjoy laying on the ground.

    There is plenthora of evidence from a large number of countries, a large number of historical periods and a large number of different policies - to suggest that there is no visible positive correlation between the strictness of gun laws, and the frequency of mass shootings.

    As much as it might be tempting to see what is not there when advocating for a certain policy, the world is what it is, and it does not care about one's political beliefs. The world merely offers facts, and whether to accept those facts or to deny/misrepresent them is up to the individual.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch