Should America have gun control? - 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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


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!

Should America have gun control?
in Politics

By YeshuaBoughtYeshuaBought 242 Pts
I say yes because too many people are dying. My factual right to live outwerighs your alleged right to shoot me. If you are a gun nut, you are NOT prolife!
Zombieguy1987AlecbeckysmithApplesauceJacksonRogerscheesycheese
«13456710



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 1
    An alternative point of view:

    Maybe requiring a psychological evaluation prior to a weapon/s purchase? 

    Because apparently, if a background check checks out, and an individual is able to purchase a weapon, and then later on, that same individual, goes about committing a crime with that same weapon, then maybe additional steps could be added to the process of being able to purchase a weapon? 






    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB I could agree to that, but remember the Orlando shooter who made the terrorist watch list. Besides, background checks can fail.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    An alternative point of view:

    Maybe requiring a psychological evaluation prior to a weapon/s purchase? 

    Because apparently, if a background check checks out, and an individual is able to purchase a weapon, and then later on, that same individual, goes about committing a crime with that same weapon, then maybe additional steps could be added to the process of being able to purchase a weapon? 

    Maybe people who have been found guilty of committing a felony shouldn't be entitled to a presumption of innocence.  If they're picked up for a crime, maybe they should have to prove they didn't do it.

    Maybe we can also require people to pass a test that demonstrates that they understand civics and issues facing their legislatures before they're allowed to vote. 

    Maybe we can license journalists while were at it, not allow people to make public statements unless they can pass a test and produce character witnesses.


    I'm sure I can figure out how to trample on other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, but I trust I've made my point.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I have the right to live, you DON"T have the right to shoot me.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRIcheesycheese
  • I have the right to live, you DON"T have the right to shoot me.
    I do if you break into my home.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • @Zombieguy1987 Reported and blocked for death threats. I have done nothing to you, or your stupid friend. This is my body, and if someone shoots me, they are a murder.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • I have the right to live, you DON"T have the right to shoot me.

    And the US has an amendment where people have the right to own guns, and if you were to be a threat to me, then I have the right to shoot you 

    How dare you post terroristic death threats against against @YeshuaLovesYou's life!!  You have a 1st Amendment right to post things on the internet, but you have no right to make death threats.  You need to cease and desist now and apologize immediately. 

    (Did I get it right, @YeshuaLovesYou?  Did I miss anything, or leave anything out?)

    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • The First Amendment does not apply to threatening to shoot someone. I am reporting both of you to the FBI for death threats.
    Zombieguy1987Applesaucebeckysmith
  • @Zombieguy1987 Reported and blocked for death threats. I have done nothing to you, or your stupid friend. This is my body, and if someone shoots me, they are a murder.

    I didn't threaten you...

    I'm proving why your logic is flawed

    I gave an example why killing people is justified sometimes...

    Facts Trump Fewlings snowflake



    Applesauce
     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • The First Amendment does not apply to threatening to shoot someone. I am reporting both of you to the FBI for death threats. 

    Me and @CYDdharta ARE NOT THREATING YOU!!!

    We are trying to prove why violence is justified sometimes...

    Like the death penalty... or the Second Amendment


     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • I say yes because too many people are dying. My factual right to live outwerighs your alleged right to shoot me. If you are a gun nut, you are NOT prolife!

    There's a difference between pro-life and owning a gun...

    Pro-life: Believing that the fetus shouldn't be aborted because it is a living human, and shouldn't be treated as a sub human.

    Owning a gun: Using for self defence against a threat, like a home intruder... or an alien invasion or any other threat...

    Those are two HUGE differences 




     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 Most allegedly prolife conservatives are progun which makes them hypocrites. I am not doing anything to you, so you don't have the right to threaten to shoot me. Leave me alone, or be reported.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 339 Pts
    edited January 1
    @Zombieguy1987 Most allegedly prolife conservatives are progun which makes them hypocrites. I am not doing anything to you, so you don't have the right to threaten to shoot me. Leave me alone, or be reported.

    No, they'd be hypocrites if they are prolife, yet support abortion... That's what they mean by the words pro-life. They're against abortion!

    And once again, i didn't threaten you. I gave an example of why owning guns as a good thing, but you twisted it around so you make me and @CYDdharta look like jerks, because your only evidence is a book from 2,000 years ago, where guns didn't exist!

     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 The whole point is being polife is to value human life, not just the fetus.
    Zombieguy1987beckysmith
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    What some in general, in the United States need to think about, if they have a weapon in their hand, and that someone unjustifiably uses that weapon to commit a crime with, that someone is incorrect with their weapon.

    And the second amendment, in a criminal case, isn't what the second amendment is for, or about. 
    YeshuaBoughtZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/the-second-amendment-and-the-right-to-bear-arms.html

    An excerpt from the webpage:

    "Restrictions on Some Gun Owners

    Federal law outlaws the possession of firearms or ammunition by several categories of people, including:

    • convicted felons
    • anyone who’s been convicted of a misdemeanor for domestic violence or is under a domestic violence restraining order (but only if the order protects an “intimate partner” or child from physical force or threats)
    • people who’ve been committed to a psychiatric institution or labeled mentally ill under a court ruling
    • undocumented immigrants and those in the country under nonimmigrant visas
    • illegal drug users, and
    • former military members who had a dishonorable discharge.

    (18 U.S.C. § 922(g).)

    Many states also prohibit or restrict gun possession by other groups of people, such as stalkers and people subject to other kinds of restraining orders, minors, juvenile offenders, and those convicted of alcohol- and/or drug-related crimes. And a few states allow courts to order some people to give up their guns temporarily if they pose an immediate risk to themselves or others."



  • I think "yes" the USA should have gun control. I think the majority of the people here can agree that people that have a record of criminal activities should not be able to purchase/own a gun. I think that a good start would be that if a person wants to get a gun the need to 

    1. Apply for the permit from the police
    2. Provide clearance of their criminal record,to prove that they don't have any criminal conviction 
    3. Provide a doctor's note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse (this note should be renewed every 2 years) 
    4. You wait for 2 weeks and you get your gun     
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • I think "yes" the USA should have gun control. I think the majority of the people here can agree that people that have a record of criminal activities should not be able to purchase/own a gun. I think that a good start would be that if a person wants to get a gun the need to 

    1. Apply for the permit from the police
    2. Provide clearance of their criminal record,to prove that they don't have any criminal conviction 
    3. Provide a doctor's note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse (this note should be renewed every 2 years) 
    4. You wait for 2 weeks and you get your gun     

    What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion? 

    Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Why or how do these other conversations get pulled into this forum: 

    (Should America have gun control?)


    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?"


  •  https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    Why or how do these other conversations get pulled into this forum: 

    (Should America have gun control?)


    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?"



    It's a pertinent question, since we're talking about restricting Constitutional rights.
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 339 Pts
    edited January 1
    TTKDB said:
    What some in general, in the United States need to think about, if they have a weapon in their hand, and that someone unjustifiably uses that weapon to commit a crime with, that someone is incorrect with their weapon.

    And the second amendment, in a criminal case, isn't what the second amendment is for, or about. 

    Chicago..

    The city with some of the strictest gun control laws...

    Has one of the worst crime rates in the country...

    Why?

    There's a thing called the black market, and it doesn't care about laws


    AlofRI
     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    A response for this from you:

    "Chicago..

    The city with some of the strictest gun control laws...

    Has one of the worst crime rates in the country...

    Why?

    There's a thing called the black market, and it doesn't care about laws."






    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 1
    @CYDdharta

    I believe that the theme of the forum is this:

    (Should America have gun control?)


    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?" 

    "It's a pertinent question, since we're talking about restricting Constitutional rights."

    When you pull these words into the theme of the forum:

    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?"

    Aren't you in a sense, changing up the dynamic of the premise of the current forum, with your outside of the original premise, points of view? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    I believe that the theme of the forum is this:

    (Should America have gun control?)


    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?" 

    "It's a pertinent question, since we're talking about restricting Constitutional rights."

    When you pull these words into the theme of the forum:

    "What other rights do you think citizens should be required to get governmental, law enforcement and medical permission to exercise, freedom of the press, assembly, religion?"

    Aren't you in a sense, changing up the dynamic of the premise of the current forum, with your outside of the original premise, points of view? 

    Perhaps it does change the dynamic, but it's nonetheless valid.  I believe we should consider the ramifications of actions before we promote them.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts

    From The Washington Times:

    "Rahm Emanuel blames Chicago violence on 'shortage of values'

    "Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel blamed the city’s massive crime problem on a “shortage of values” after at least 75 people were shot over the weekend."

    “We have a heavy heart,” the Democratic mayor said at a news conference Monday. “Our souls are burdened. What happened this weekend did not happen in every neighborhood of Chicago but it is unacceptable to happen in any neighborhood of Chicago. We are a better city.”

    "Between 3 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Monday, 12 people were killed and 63 wounded, ranging from ages 11 to 62, the Chicago Tribune reported. No arrests have yet been made."

    "He also said placing the blame for the violence on higher summer temperatures, when crime typically spikes, would be a mistake."

    "Mr. Emanuel called on residents to “be a neighbor” and step forward if they knew anything about the perpetrators."

    “You can talk about the weather but the weather didn’t pull the trigger,” Mr. Emanuel said. “You can talk about jobs, and they count, but in parts of the city where there aren’t jobs, people did not pull the trigger."

    ‌“There are too many guns on the street, too many people with criminal records on the street, and there is a shortage of values about what is right, what is wrong, was is acceptable, what is condoned and what is condemned,” he said."
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    "Perhaps it does change the dynamic, but it's nonetheless valid.  I believe we should consider the ramifications of actions before we promote them."

    Why shouldn't those who commit crimes with their weapons, think ahead of time, about the lives of  those, that they go about changing through the illegaI actions of using a weapon to commit their crimes with?

    For how many years and decades has weapons violance been going on for now? 

    Look at it this way, you express these words:  "I believe we should consider the ramifications of actions before we promote them."

    And then some of the citizens in the United States, who legally had a weapon, but then, used that weapon to commit a crime with, why shouldn't they have heeded your very words, and then created ramifications of their own, by hurting innocent people with their weapons? 

    What it comes down to is this, you have your rationalization, in regards to weapons and the second amendment? 

    And the legal weapons owners, who went about breaking the law, and abused their right to bear arms, apparently have a rationalization different from yours? 

    So your values in regards to the second amendment, became secondary to the other weapons owner, who broke the law, by committing a crime or crimes by using their weapons? 
  • TTKDB said:

    From The Washington Times:

    "Rahm Emanuel blames Chicago violence on 'shortage of values'

    "Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel blamed the city’s massive crime problem on a “shortage of values” after at least 75 people were shot over the weekend."

    “We have a heavy heart,” the Democratic mayor said at a news conference Monday. “Our souls are burdened. What happened this weekend did not happen in every neighborhood of Chicago but it is unacceptable to happen in any neighborhood of Chicago. We are a better city.”

    "Between 3 p.m. Friday and 6 a.m. Monday, 12 people were killed and 63 wounded, ranging from ages 11 to 62, the Chicago Tribune reported. No arrests have yet been made."

    "He also said placing the blame for the violence on higher summer temperatures, when crime typically spikes, would be a mistake."

    "Mr. Emanuel called on residents to “be a neighbor” and step forward if they knew anything about the perpetrators."

    “You can talk about the weather but the weather didn’t pull the trigger,” Mr. Emanuel said. “You can talk about jobs, and they count, but in parts of the city where there aren’t jobs, people did not pull the trigger."

    ‌“There are too many guns on the street, too many people with criminal records on the street, and there is a shortage of values about what is right, what is wrong, was is acceptable, what is condoned and what is condemned,” he said."
    Rahm was right not to place the blame on higher summer temperatures.  He was wrong to put the blame on the number of guns.  Houston is the closest city in size to Chicago.  Houston is a lot hotter and has a lot more people with guns, but has less than half Chicago's murders.  Apparently Houstonians, as a rule, have better values than Chicagoans.  Perhaps the fact that so many more Houstonians are armed is one of the they have better values than Chicagoans.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Look at it this way, you express these words:  "I believe we should consider the ramifications of actions before we promote them."

    And then some of the citizens in the United States, who legally had a weapon, but then, used that weapon to commit a crime with, why shouldn't they have heeded your very words, and then created ramifications of their own, by hurting innocent people with their weapons? 

    What it comes down to is this, you have your rationalization, in regards to weapons and the second amendment? 

    And the legal weapons owners, who went about breaking the law, and abused their right to bear arms, apparently have a rationalization different from yours? 

    So your values in regards to the second amendment, became secondary to the other weapons owner, who broke the law, by committing a crime or crimes by using their weapons? 
  • TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    Look at it this way, you express these words:  "I believe we should consider the ramifications of actions before we promote them."

    And then some of the citizens in the United States, who legally had a weapon, but then, used that weapon to commit a crime with, why shouldn't they have heeded your very words, and then created ramifications of their own, by hurting innocent people with their weapons? 

    What it comes down to is this, you have your rationalization, in regards to weapons and the second amendment? 

    And the legal weapons owners, who went about breaking the law, and abused their right to bear arms, apparently have a rationalization different from yours? 

    So your values in regards to the second amendment, became secondary to the other weapons owner, who broke the law, by committing a crime or crimes by using their weapons? 

    I see; so you view rights as being contingent on whether the government can envision them being abused in some way.  If rights can be abused in some way, the government can set up all kinds of hurdles and restrictions to deny citizens their ability to avail themselves of those rights.  Is that how that works?  All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that can be restricted or denied by the government on a whim, Constitution be damned?  You really don't see the problem here???
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 2
    @CYDdharta

    "I see; so you view rights as being contingent on whether the government can envision them being abused in some way.  If rights can be abused in some way, the government can set up all kinds of hurdles and restrictions to deny citizens their ability to avail themselves of those rights.  Is that how that works?  All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that can be restricted or denied by the government on a whim, Constitution be damned?  You really don't see the problem here???"

    Let me make a guess, based upon, your above words? 

     You love your weapons, just like some drug users love their weed, and so on, and so on, right? 
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • If someone breaks in to a home and the owner grabs a knife to protect themselves, ends up stabbing the criminal who dies, should we ban knives?  Replace the knife with a bat, hammer, screwdriver, fire place poker......or in the struggle the homeowner knocks the criminal down who hits his head on the corner of a counter, table etc and dies, ban all those things?

    I think this applies as well  "But for" Rule
    Zombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDB said:

    Let me make a guess, based upon, your above words? 

     You love your weapons, just like some drug users love their weed, and so on, and so on, right? 

    And if I were to guess based on your comments, you love an all-powerful police state.  Rights?  What are those?  There are no such things, there is only what the government permits when the government allows it.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  All Hail Big Brother!!
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • Chicago has really strict gun control laws, and look how that is going. 

    Also, Mexico has gun control laws. Must I mention Acapulco and Los Cabos? They make Chicago look like a safe haven.  
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  •  SilverishGoldNova said:
    Chicago has really strict gun control laws, and look how that is going. 

    Also, Mexico has gun control laws. Must I mention Acapulco and Los Cabos? They make Chicago look like a safe haven.  
    The focus should be on "Why", not "what with?".
    ApplesauceZombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta well can you kill people with freedom of press or with assembly,religion ? No I don't think so 
    What I'm saying is that every gun owner who is mentally fit,has no drug problem and has no criminal records can of course keep their gun,people who are a danger to themselves and to society should not have a gun. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta well can you kill people with freedom of press or with assembly,religion ? No I don't think so 
    What I'm saying is that every gun owner who is mentally fit,has no drug problem and has no criminal records can of course keep their gun,people who are a danger to themselves and to society should not have a gun. 

    The press, religions, have never caused people to be killed?!?  You don't seem to know much about history, or current event for that matter.
    Zombieguy1987ApplesauceSilverishGoldNova
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Because of your rhetoric:

    "And if I were to guess based on your comments, you love an all-powerful police state.  Rights?  What are those?  There are no such things, there is only what the government permits when the government allows it.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  All Hail Big Brother!! 

    Do you entitle yourself to making such comments, because you're a weapons owner, and you're borrowing the second amendment as a platform maker, and using it apparently as your soapbox? 

    I'm pro community, and pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America. 

    (When a weapons owner, goes home, and turns their weapon on their own family, or turns their weapon on a building filled with strangers..)

    What is your probable position on the above? 

    Do you maybe view the two above criminal situations as being pro family, or pro community?

    (Is anyone/ big brother,) as we have this debate, trying to take your weapons away from you?

    But at the same time, offenders with weapons, do not have the right to murder their or another's family with their weapons do they?

    But you cry foul when someone says gun control? 

    Any human being before committing a crime with a weapon, should have some basic principled respect for themselves, and the others who are in the same communities with them.

    Here's the ugly problem, offenders have used weapons to kill innocent people with, and there are weapons owners who are abiding by the law.

    Well guess what, the public/society/ and communities across have been placed in between the offenders who use weapons illegally to commit their crimes with, and the law abiding weapons owners.

    The above is how I view the 300 million plus firearms in the United States, in comparison to the 325 million US citizens.

    And roughly 900,000 police officers in the United States, nationwide have been placed in between the law abiding weapons owners, and the offenders who use their weapons to commit their crimes with.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 2
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you point out specifically, what below points of view, that you view as a fallacy? 

    Because of your rhetoric:

    "And if I were to guess based on your comments, you love an all-powerful police state.  Rights?  What are those?  There are no such things, there is only what the government permits when the government allows it.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  All Hail Big Brother!! 

    Do you entitle yourself to making such comments, because you're a weapons owner, and you're borrowing the second amendment as a platform maker, and using it apparently as your soapbox? 

    I'm pro community, pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America. 

    (When a weapons owner, goes home, and turns their weapon on their own family, or turns their weapon on a building filled with strangers..)

    What is your probable position on the above? 

    Do you maybe view the two above criminal situations as being pro family, or pro community?

    (Is anyone/ big brother,) as we have this debate, trying to take your weapons away from you?

    But at the same time, offenders with weapons, do not have the right to murder their or another's family with their weapons do they?

    But you cry foul when someone says gun control? 

    Any human being before committing a crime with a weapon, should have some basic principled respect for themselves, and the others who are in the same communities with them.

    Here's the ugly problem, offenders have used weapons to kill innocent people with, and there are weapons owners who are abiding by the law.

    Well guess what, the public/society/ and communities across have been placed in between the offenders who use weapons illegally to commit their crimes with, and the law abiding weapons owners.

    The above is how I view the 300 million plus firearms in the United States, in comparison to the 325 million US citizens.

    And roughly 900,000 police officers in the United States, nationwide have been placed in between the law abiding weapons owners, and the offenders who use their weapons to commit their crimes with. 

    Are you maybe a weapons owner as well Zombieguy1987? 





    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Can you point out specifically, what below points of view, that you view as a fallacy? 

    Your off topic questions

    Are you maybe a weapons owner as well Zombieguy1987? 

    Unless you count my hockey equipment and my nerf guns as weapons... then no.

    I'm not a weapons owner, but when I'm old enough to legally own a gun than yes.

    But I support the right to own a gun because some crazy and dangerous stuff happens out in the world, and a gun would be a great way to deter people...

    But it seems you support gun control.



     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • CYDdharta said:
    @CYDdharta well can you kill people with freedom of press or with assembly,religion ? No I don't think so 
    What I'm saying is that every gun owner who is mentally fit,has no drug problem and has no criminal records can of course keep their gun,people who are a danger to themselves and to society should not have a gun. 

    The press, religions, have never caused people to be killed?!?  You don't seem to know much about history, or current event for that matter.

    @TTKDB people...

    He knows nothing about reality and/or history!


     https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Winston Churchill or the British Government sank the Lusitania to drag the U.S into World War 1. The only conspiracy theory I believe is true

    Gets called an SJW despite evidence against such claims "That's conservative SJWs for you"-Me

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • I think "yes" the USA should have gun control. I think the majority of the people here can agree that people that have a record of criminal activities should not be able to purchase/own a gun. I think that a good start would be that if a person wants to get a gun the need to 

    1. Apply for the permit from the police
    2. Provide clearance of their criminal record,to prove that they don't have any criminal conviction 
    3. Provide a doctor's note saying you are mentally fit and do not have a history of drug abuse (this note should be renewed every 2 years) 
    4. You wait for 2 weeks and you get your gun     
    what other rights do the police need to ok?
    #2 is already that way
    #3 totally absurd
    #4 some states have an even longer wait period, which does absolutely nothing since criminals don't follow laws

    clearly you know very little on the subject, the waiting period pretty much gave that away.  You don't understand the bill of rights and constitution that the U.S. has, not enough to really engage in this topic.  Please do more research and educate yourself a lot more on these topics.
    Zombieguy1987
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @Zombieguy1987

    "But it seems you support gun control."

    Just as I stated before: I'm pro community, pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America. 

    Now you tell me, how did you derive from the above, that I somehow support gun control? 

    I support the second amendment.

    And I also support the millions of people in the United States, who want to enjoy life, without an offender illegally using a weapon to commit a crime against those same millions of people.

    And I support the March For Our Lives members as well.

    And I support those members, fighting for the school kids across the country. (I saw the March, I heard the various speakers, saw the various news vans that were covering the March from the staging areas. And I saw plenty of the protest posters, and watched the protesters carrying their protest posters down the street.)

    I'm trying to express to you the various points of view, that have encompassed my education:
    On the second amendment, the law abiding weapons owners, and the weapons owners, who broke the law, and used their weapons to commit their crimes with.
    And how that illegal weapons violance has affected, the millions of people across the country.




  • TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    Because of your rhetoric:

    "And if I were to guess based on your comments, you love an all-powerful police state.  Rights?  What are those?  There are no such things, there is only what the government permits when the government allows it.  Freedom is slavery.  Ignorance is strength.  All Hail Big Brother!! 

    Do you entitle yourself to making such comments, because you're a weapons owner, and you're borrowing the second amendment as a platform maker, and using it apparently as your soapbox? 

    No, not because I'm a firearms owner, but because I'm a citizen who doesn't condone encroaching on a right that "shall not be infringed".  What entitles you to make statements in support of a totalitarian police state?
    I'm pro community, and pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America.
    You aren't pro community, and pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America if you wish undermine the US Constitution.
    (When a weapons owner, goes home, and turns their weapon on their own family, or turns their weapon on a building filled with strangers..)

    What is your probable position on the above?
    Do you maybe view the two above criminal situations as being pro family, or pro community?
    Do you view the above situation as being pro family or pro community?
    (Is anyone/ big brother,) as we have this debate, trying to take your weapons away from you?
    Nope, even if the inane measures you suggested were passed, it still wouldn't affect me.  I'm not arguing for personal gain, I'm arguing from the need to observe fundamental human rights and limit the powers of the state which are already out of control.
    But at the same time, offenders with weapons, do not have the right to murder their or another's family with their weapons do they?

    But you cry foul when someone says gun control?
    Of course, because the only thing we can say for certain is that no gun control measure is going to stop offenders from murdering their or another's family with their weapons.
    Any human being before committing a crime with a weapon, should have some basic principled respect for themselves, and the others who are in the same communities with them.

    Here's the ugly problem, offenders have used weapons to kill innocent people with, and there are weapons owners who are abiding by the law.

    Well guess what, the public/society/ and communities across have been placed in between the offenders who use weapons illegally to commit their crimes with, and the law abiding weapons owners.

    The above is how I view the 300 million plus firearms in the United States, in comparison to the 325 million US citizens.

    And roughly 900,000 police officers in the United States, nationwide have been placed in between the law abiding weapons owners, and the offenders who use their weapons to commit their crimes with.

    Here's another ugly problem; none of the suggestions you made will stop offenders from using weapons to kill innocent people.

    The biggest effect of requiring a psychological evaluation prior to a weapons purchase would be to dissuade people from seeking help when they need it because they're worried about losing their property and their rights.

    The only law-abiding weapons owners who have killed people were those who used their weapons in self-defense.  This happens hundreds of thousands to millions of times per year.  Gun control won't stop criminal misuse of firearms, but it will impede law-abiding gun owners from being able to defend themselves and others.  Feel free to explain how prohibiting people from being able to defend themselves is pro community, pro law, pro family, pro education, or pro United States of America.
    Zombieguy1987Applesauce
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 3
    @CYDdharta

    "Here's another ugly problem; none of the suggestions you made will stop offenders from using weapons to kill innocent people."

    Why don't you take your words and tell it to the families who have had family members murdered by the offenders you're talking about? 

    Here you go, reach out to the family talked about in this current Nationwide story from Texas? 

    https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/31/us/texas-killing/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/us/texas-killing/index.html 

    Some excerpts from the story:

    "Texas dad pleads for help in finding gunman who killed 7-year-old girl"


    "They came through my window, broke my glass, and hit me in my arm," she told the station from her hospital bed.

    Washington said: "He sped off in front of us and stopped, and still continued to fire at us."

    "It was not fair. He intentionally killed my child for no reason. He didn't even know her. He didn't even know who she was," she said."


    See how the second amendment that you cherish, just got treated by the suspect talked about in the news story? 

    Isn't it tragic, when the very laws making murder illegal gets treated like trash? 

    When an offender wants to treat the very community that they just affected by the their gun violence like trash? 

    Treating the freedom of choice in the United States like trash? 

    And the firearm that they used to commit their crime with, the weapon itself, was treated like trash as well? 

    How does the above make you feel CYDdharta? 

    How does that news story make you feel?

    It's sickinly sad that another family has been affected by gun violance isn't it? 

    "Gun control won't stop criminal misuse of firearms, but it will impede law-abiding gun owners from being able to defend themselves and others.  Feel free to explain how prohibiting people from being able to defend themselves is pro community, pro law, pro family, pro education, or pro United States of America."

    Why don't you take the above statement, and tell it that same Texas family? 



  • TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    "Here's another ugly problem; none of the suggestions you made will stop offenders from using weapons to kill innocent people."

    Why don't you take your words and tell it to the families who have had family members murdered by the offenders you're talking about? 

    Here you go, reach out to the family talked about in this current Nationwide story from Texas? 

    https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/12/31/us/texas-killing/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/us/texas-killing/index.html 

    Some excerpts from the story:

    "Texas dad pleads for help in finding gunman who killed 7-year-old girl"


    "They came through my window, broke my glass, and hit me in my arm," she told the station from her hospital bed.

    Washington said: "He sped off in front of us and stopped, and still continued to fire at us."

    "It was not fair. He intentionally killed my child for no reason. He didn't even know her. He didn't even know who she was," she said."


    See how the second amendment that you cherish, just got treated by the suspect talked about in the news story? 

    Isn't it tragic, when the very laws making murder illegal gets treated like trash? 

    When an offender wants to treat the very community that they just affected by the their gun violence like trash? 

    Treating the freedom of choice in the United States like trash? 

    And the firearm that they used to commit their crime with, the weapon itself, was treated like trash as well? 

    How does the above make you feel CYDdharta? 

    How does that news story make you feel?

    It's sickinly sad that another family has been affected by gun violance isn't it? 

    "Gun control won't stop criminal misuse of firearms, but it will impede law-abiding gun owners from being able to defend themselves and others.  Feel free to explain how prohibiting people from being able to defend themselves is pro community, pro law, pro family, pro education, or pro United States of America."

    Why don't you take the above statement, and tell it that same Texas family? 




    It's tragic; unfortunately, even if every one of your suggestions had been implement, the very same thing could have happened, and you damned well know it.  I seriously doubt I'd have to explain it to Mr. Cevilla, he seems intelligent enough to know that already, but if you want me to, post his address.

    Now how about explaining why you love and promote the police state and want to deter gun owners and potential gun owners from trying to get medical help?
    Zombieguy1987gabe
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    edited January 3
    @CYDdharta

    "Now how about explaining why you love and promote the police state and want to deter gun owners and potential gun owners from trying to get medical help?"

    Point out to me, where I've expressed any police state dialogue? 

    Here's my position:

    I'm pro community, pro second amendment, pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America. 

    What is your position? 



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 969 Pts
    edited January 3
    TTKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    "Now how about explaining why you love and promote the police state and want to deter gun owners and potential gun owners from trying to get medical help?"

    Point out to me, where I've expressed any police state dialogue? 

    Here's my position:

    I'm pro community, pro second amendment, pro law, pro family, pro education, and pro United States of America. 

    What is your position?


    You keep saying that, but you have yet to explain how denying people their rights is pro community, pro second amendment, pro law, pro family, pro education, or pro United States of America.  It is, however, pro police state.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    And you're stalling CYDdharta.

    You can have a seat behind your soapbox, and parade these words before the audience to this forum all you want:

    "You keep saying that, but you have yet to explain how denying people their rights is pro community, pro second amendment, pro law, pro family, pro education, or pro United States of America.  It is, however, pro police state."


    What's your position? 
  • TTKDBTTKDB 260 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    What national TV news media outlets, like ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, PBS, WHRO, or maybe even NPR?

    Has stated in any of it's news media outlet coverage, say in the last 6 months, about this from you? 

    That the "United States of America. It is, however, pro police state."

    Where's your evidence to support your statement? 
    CYDdhartaZombieguy1987Applesauce
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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