Have we gone too far with gun control hysteria? - 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!

Have we gone too far with gun control hysteria?
in Politics

By billbatardbillbatard 105 Pts edited March 29
First off i want to say I support reasonable restriction on guns, they are too easy to get, and I am not sure any private citizen should be able to have a military or military style weapon of the modern type, go ahead keep your m 1 garand or lee enfield but modrn assualt style weapons are too deadly 
and the whole  second amendment  argument is sperious the founders first mentioned that a well regulated militia  as a qualification for arms possession, why would they do that if they intended the right to be absolute? Secondly we do need to crack dont on these muslims and white crazies that think that violence terror and death are good ways to get the world they want.. we need to find them arrest them, or if necessary take them out with the trash.. you know what i mean Image result for terminate with extreme prejudice gifbut in our quest to fight terrorism and be safe lets not forget about individual liberty lets not be safe inside a prison
CharlesLichstien
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • billbatard said:
    First off i want to say I support reasonable restriction on guns, they are too easy to get, and I am not sure any private citizen should be able to have a military or military style weapon of the modern type,

    great you have an opinion woohoo, I disagree, there's my opinion, or did you plan on presenting an argument with facts?
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce so are you saying guns should be  banned? or are you saying bazookas should be legal everyone hates me i am for rational regualtion and the emotional ideologues hate logic
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @Applesauce what fcts would you like there are so many The researchers gave each county two scores. The first was a state policy score based on the strength of its firearm laws. The laws the researchers focused on include:
    • Laws mandating strict licensing requirements or increased law enforcement oversight of gun dealers.
    • Laws requiring background checks for private sales of firearms, including gun show sales.
    • Laws that require individuals to obtain licenses to purchase or own firearms.
    • Regulations setting minimum design standards for firearms, to limit the availability of inexpensive handguns. 
    • Laws restricting multiple purchases of guns, designed to prevent "straw purchasers" from buying multiple weapons on behalf of someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm.
    • Laws requiring owners to report loss or theft of a firearm.

    The researchers gave each county two scores. The first was a state policy score based on the strength of its firearm laws. The laws the researchers focused on include:

    • Laws mandating strict licensing requirements or increased law enforcement oversight of gun dealers.
    • Laws requiring background checks for private sales of firearms, including gun show sales.
    • Laws that require individuals to obtain licenses to purchase or own firearms.
    • Regulations setting minimum design standards for firearms, to limit the availability of inexpensive handguns. 
    • Laws restricting multiple purchases of guns, designed to prevent "straw purchasers" from buying multiple weapons on behalf of someone who cannot legally purchase a firearm.
    • Laws requiring owners to report loss or theft of a firearm.

    The researchers also gave each county an interstate policy score, where a higher score meant stricter laws in nearby states. This is important because firearms can be moved so easily across state lines, presenting a challenge to states that have stronger policies in place. Counties were then divided into low, medium, and high scores.

    Using statistical models to compare groups of counties, the researchers found strong firearm laws in a state were associated with lower rates of firearm homicide. Conversely, counties in states with weak gun laws had the highest rates of firearm homicide.

    They also discovered that counties in states with weaker gun laws had lower rates of firearm homicide when surrounding states had strong gun laws. This suggests that when a state strengthens its firearms laws, both that state and its neighbors could see protective benefits.

    "We thought that because guns can cross state lines, counties in states with restrictive laws might have higher homicide rates if they were near other states with more lenient laws," Kaufman said. "But what we found was somewhat the opposite. Counties in states with weak laws had fewer deaths than expected when surrounding state laws were strong.

    "We can't say what causes this relationship," she continued, "but it is encouraging to think that these policies might have benefits that extend across state lines -- a bit of a halo effect."


    The authors note that the study is observational and cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between firearm laws and gun violence. The study also notes that only a few states -- mostly along the East Coast, plus Illinois, Michigan and California -- have strict laws, so the "ability to detect an effect of the strictest laws may have been limited," the authors wrote. Guns sold through the mail and internet can also make firearms equally accessible no matter where someone lives.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-laws-state-impact-on-shooting-deaths-suicide-study/

    CYDdharta
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @Applesauce ; A major global report confirms gun-related homicides, suicides and accidents are falling in Australia after the introduction of anti-gun laws, and that the effect of such tough laws is similar elsewhere.Share:  Journal Reference:
    1. The Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury Collaborators. Global Mortality From Firearms, 1990-2016JAMA, 2018; 320 (8): 792 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.10060
    2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181019100647.htm
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @billbatard

    I've already posted about how comparisons with other countries doesn't work and why, search up the old posts if you care to learn the realities of that issue.

    correlation =/= causation

    First off i want to say I support reasonable restriction on guns, they are too easy to get, and I am not sure any private citizen should be able to have a military or military style weapon of the modern type
    what do you consider "reasonable restrictions"?
    why is something that looks "military style" inherently more dangerous than the counter part that does not look so scary?

    this is what comes to mind when I hear things similar to that statement you made
    https://youtu.be/L5CxUZp5VZA


    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • Have we gone too far with gun control hysteria?  No.

    We either do not tell the whole truth, or we do not know the whole truth. The reason why we the people are to presume a person is innocent, allow it as right to buy, own, and use a gun, is in fact due to a Congregational Armed Force and whichever type gun that institutional is issuing can be acquired for ability to participate in a common legal defense.

    Meaning this we are upholding a United State in Constitutions understanding for capital punishment and use of lethal force.  Gun ownership is a United States Constitutional right as common defense. This is a legal defense made on lethal force of others. It is not a self-defense argument of law, the basic principle is not to place a soldier, or officer of the law in a position where only they must use lethal force alone, on behalf of the public. A public must also assume this burden.

    Our United State though just happens to believe that draft into military service is not necessary in regard to a legal defense when common opportunity of liberty can be used. This is equality held at the high level of impartially.

  • @Applesauce you make a valid point about cosmetic aspects in canada they restricted two things magizine capacity and weapons by design that are easily converted to full auto.. this worked well violence rates have steadily dropped, what was even more effective was an all out ban on semi automatic weapons and pump shot guns in australia, they do have a silly law there that even if a rifle looks military even if it is strait pull it must be banned, i prefer the uk solution they banned handguns and semi autos you may own a semi auto in 22cal rim fire and it may be as military lookinmg as you want
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @John_C_87 states have a right to fomr a militia and them ilitia must be regualted, that says nothing about an individual right 
    The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
    Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine,January 14, 1990.  https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @Applesauce hand guns and semi automatic long guns would be re classified as nfa weapons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa any self loading weapon any fire arm with a barrel length of less than 12 inches would automaticall recalified as a destructie weapon as was done with the street sweeper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armsel_Striker  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armsel_Striker#Availability_in_the_United_States  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoy14h6K5TY
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @billbatard

    those ideas would effectively make the 2a null and void.  Some states have tried to do some of those restrictions but the Supreme Court deemed them unconstitutional.  The 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban was all about cosmetics and some states still have similar, which, imo is beyond stupid and useless.
    It is more logical to want to ban the same functioning thing then it is to ban something based on looks or features that have no provable or only potential benefit to the individual, which is extremely minor at best.
    this is where and why the slippery slope argument is used.

    fyi the mass murder (3rd in number dead) at Virginia tech, that guy has a .22cal pistol, basic physics the same caliber shot out of a longer barrel = greater impact force.  .22 cal is the same that almost killed Ronald Reagan, there have been other less well known and media covered mass murders that have also involved that caliber.

    I don't think there should be any such ban for a variety of reasons included there are over 20 million ar-15s in circulation, it would take a military state to confiscate them all which would end up in more deaths then any mass murders per year.  But that's a whole other topic
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @billbatard ;

    Billbatard

    Can I use the answer yes and no at the same time? The 2nd Amendment does in effect relay a whole truth made by the legal commitment set in united state in the explanation of constitutional preamble by principle, around common defense. The united state is made between military and civilian concern, this union of state went on to be legal defense of lethal force in the United States Civil War.

    A really here is that what legal precedent set by civil court is doing in acts of restitution as compensation for justice, under a title of justice is now going up against the basic legal argument of lethal force as a united state.  First any payment is not a substitution for justice it is the asking for permission to make payment instead of justice. As whole truth. This is outside the focus for now.

    Second: If you pay tax and do not own a gun expect, receive, or interfere with protection by use of lethal force in any shooting. We have committed a crime equal to or greater than the one broken by a person who has used lethal force.

    I’m going to stop there as that statement is a lot to take in. An requires answers to question to fulfill a state of the union made between people.



  • @billbatard ;
    Gun lobbyists have a greater issue to contend with as they dance a line between rights of ownership to design of, and Right to the institutions common defense. There are multiple United State created and not all are Constitutionally tested by court as impartial or in sequence to a whole truth. 
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 30
    @billbatard

    Religion of any sort, does not dictate gun violence brutality.

    A gun of any sort, does not dictate gun violence brutality.

    An individual human being inhumane with a gun, is the individual, solely dictating to the rest of the humanity around them with their violent inhumane brutality attitude

    Regardless of religion, or the conversations that some may base on the pigmentation of ones skin, or how some use the 2nd Amendment, as a convenient platform device for their guns?

    It's a double standard, in a sense, for some to use the second amendment to defend ones own guns, while some of the mass shooters, have used the same guns to commit their gun violence brutality crimes with? 

    Gun violence brutality in general, is solely humanity made.

    Humans want weapons, so the rest of humanity, gets to live with how some are, and can be inhumane with them.
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    edited March 30
    @Applesauce ; A major global report confirms gun-related homicides, suicides and accidents are falling in Australia after the introduction of anti-gun laws, and that the effect of such tough laws is similar elsewhere.Share:  Journal Reference:
    1. The Global Burden of Disease 2016 Injury Collaborators. Global Mortality From Firearms, 1990-2016JAMA, 2018; 320 (8): 792 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.10060
    2. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181019100647.htm
    Actually, research has shown Australia's gun bans did nothing to reduce gun violence.

    Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA [National Firearms Agreement/Gun Buyback and Ban]
    ...
    Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.
    ...
    Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.



    Applesauce
  • I do not thing you understand CYDharat a buy back simply means one crime of theft is being avoided. The United States Constitutional common defense still describing other issues under protection by a right to common defense. The biggest is the civil liability of use applying lethal force. Also criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and a long list of all kinds of other criminal laws.

    Yes a buy back is the start. However the people are still going to have unrestricted government access to the gun correct? 24-7 the gun is simply placed in an Amory along with ammunition. This simply crating a vulnerability the United States constitution was negating by use of common defense to the United State of lethal force.

    Legally Australia is giving up a rather huge legal stance for its Armed Service men and woman to use lethal force in defense of the people of Austria.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    John_C_87 said:

    I do not thing you understand CYDharat a buy back simply means one crime of theft is being avoided. The United States Constitutional common defense still describing other issues under protection by a right to common defense. The biggest is the civil liability of use applying lethal force. Also criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and a long list of all kinds of other criminal laws.

    Yes a buy back is the start. However the people are still going to have unrestricted government access to the gun correct? 24-7 the gun is simply placed in an Amory along with ammunition. This simply crating a vulnerability the United States constitution was negating by use of common defense to the United State of lethal force.

    Legally Australia is giving up a rather huge legal stance for its Armed Service men and woman to use lethal force in defense of the people of Austria.


    Does this look like an armory?


  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 30

    @CYDdharta


    How about some of the human beings being consciously humane, to the other human beings, and end their being inhumane to the rest of humanity, via their multiple gun violence brutality crimes, and the mass shooters embracing some self respect towards themselves, and for the others around them?

    And stop the abuse of the rest of humanity, via a human being inhumanely violent, towards others via the abuses of them via gun violence brutality? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    TKDB said:

    How about some of the human beings being consciously humane, to the other human beings, and end their being inhumane to the rest of humanity, via their multiple gun violence brutality crimes, and the mass shooters embracing some self respect towards themselves, and for the others around them?

    And stop the abuse of the rest of humanity, via a human being inhumanely violent, towards others via the abuses of them via gun violence brutality? 
    I'm not sure just what you're trying to say, but it seems to be why don't violent criminals stop being violent criminals?  That's a question as old as humanity.
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 30
    @CYDdharta

    "I'm not sure just what you're trying to say, but it seems to be why don't violent criminals stop being violent criminals?  That's a question as old as humanity."

    And some of humanity, seems to have gotten lazy after creating the firearm, and to in a sense, to let it in some cases do his arguing for himself?

    Let me spell it out for you.

    Murder, via gun violence brutality, shows how blatantly ignorant some of man has gotten, by becoming self spoiled via (an offender, or a criminal) babying a gun in their hand, and then ignorantly committing a crime, to self suit, their self entitling needs?

    Humanity should come first, but when an offender or a criminal illegaly has gun in their hands, they're putting themselves before the rest of humanity, aren't they, when they commit their crimes against, thousands of victims?

    Murders, drive by shootings, mass shooters, robberies, muggings, carjackings, abductions, and so on?

    Guess what else is being victimized by those criminals and offenders gun violence brutality?

    The 2nd Amendment is being victimized as well.

    So maybe keep defending the gun, the weapon, or the firearm, as you wish to.

    And do it, In the face of those unnecessary victimizations.

    Because those criminals, and offenders, are victimizing your defense as well, also.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    TKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    "I'm not sure just what you're trying to say, but it seems to be why don't violent criminals stop being violent criminals?  That's a question as old as humanity."

    And some of humanity, seems to have gotten lazy after creating the firearm, and to in a sense, to let it in some cases do his arguing for himself?

    Let me spell it out for you.

    Murder, via gun violence brutality, shows how blatantly ignorant some of man has gotten, by becoming self spoiled via (an offender, or a criminal) babying a gun in their hand, and then ignorantly committing a crime, to self suit, their self entitling needs?

    Humanity should come first, but when an offender or a criminal illegaly has gun in their hands, they're putting themselves before the rest of humanity, aren't they, when they commit their crimes against, thousands of victims?

    Murders, drive by shootings, mass shooters, robberies, muggings, carjackings, abductions, and so on?

    Guess what else is being victimized by those criminals and offenders gun violence brutality?

    The 2nd Amendment is being victimized as well.

    So maybe keep defending the gun, the weapon, or the firearm, as you wish to.

    And do it, In the face of those unnecessary victimizations.

    Because those criminals, and offenders, are victimizing your defense as well, also.

    The gun isn't doing anything, and people have no problem committing crimes, even the most violent crimes, without touching a firearm. Guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history.  If you want to come up with laws, regulations, restrictions that target criminals, great; who knows, they might even do some good.  Just don't target law abiding citizens.
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 31
    @CYDdharta

    "The gun isn't doing anything, and people have no problem committing crimes, even the most violent crimes, without touching a firearm. Guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history.  If you want to come up with laws, regulations, restrictions that target criminals, great; who knows, they might even do some good.  Just don't target law abiding citizens."

    The above is the BEST pro gun argument that you have to make?

    Guns have killed plenty of people, kids, teenages, and adults alike.

    https://www.crimesceneinvestigatoredu.org/ballistics-expert/

    "A ballistics expert (also often referred to as a forensic ballistics expert or afirearms examiner) is a forensic specialist who is responsible for collecting and analyzing ballistics-relatedevidence, which includes firearms and ammunition."

    And the above individuals, are utilized to help link, the bullets from the victims, to the very guns that the mass shooters, criminals, or offenders used to kill their victims with.

    If the mass shooters didn't use their GUNS to kill, all of those innocent people with, then we wouldn't be having this conversation over people having used their GUNS to kill people with now, would we?

    "Just dont target law abiding citizens."

    Who is "targeting" law abiding citizens?



  • @Applesauce good it should be abolished and it has been misinterpreted all it did was give states the 'right " to form militias 
    The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
    Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine,January 14, 1990.  https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • @TKDB If you look at nations with strict laws on fire arms rates of violent crime are much much lower
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    TKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    "The gun isn't doing anything, and people have no problem committing crimes, even the most violent crimes, without touching a firearm. Guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history.  If you want to come up with laws, regulations, restrictions that target criminals, great; who knows, they might even do some good.  Just don't target law abiding citizens."

    The above is the BEST pro gun argument that you have to make?

    Guns have killed plenty of people, kids, teenages, and adults alike.
    Guns haven't killed a single person.  Guns don't do anything.  It is physically impossible for a gun to kill a person.  People have used guns to kill other people, but the guns didn't do anything on their own.


    https://www.crimesceneinvestigatoredu.org/ballistics-expert/

    "A ballistics expert (also often referred to as a forensic ballistics expert or afirearms examiner) is a forensic specialist who is responsible for collecting and analyzing ballistics-relatedevidence, which includes firearms and ammunition."

    And the above individuals, are utilized to help link, the bullets from the victims, to the very guns that the mass shooters, criminals, or offenders used to kill their victims with.

    If the mass shooters didn't use their GUNS to kill, all of those innocent people with, then we wouldn't be having this conversation over people having used their GUNS to kill people with now, would we?

    "Just dont target law abiding citizens."

    Who is "targeting" law abiding citizens?
    Yes, without guns we'd likely still be having the same conversation.  As I mentioned and you ignored, "guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history".  If someone is determined to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not. 


    Who is "targeting" law abiding citizens?  The gun control movement.  Every single "common-sense" measure they're promoting is targeted at law abiding citizens.  For instance;

    • We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weapons!
    • We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!
    • We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet!
    • We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!
    • We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!
    • We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!
    • We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!
    • We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons, especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars, restaurants, and political rallies!
    • We must interface all data bases monitoring firearm ownership to assess the firearm-owning population more accurately and effectively!

    NONE of these proposed measures are aimed at criminals, they are all aimed at law abiding citizens.  They would have a negligible affect on crime, but a major impact on how, where, and even if one could defend himself.





  • there is no right to won a gun, thats not what the second amendment meant
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    there is no right to won a gun, thats not what the second amendment meant
    You're just wrong about that.  SCOTUS has already settled that issue.
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 31
    @CYDdharta

    You own guns right?

    So you have a pro gun owner mentality?

    Look at how you talk about guns: 

    Guns don't kill people.

    Criminals and offenders are always going to commit crimes.

    It's amazing how you wield the 2nd Amendment with your mindset.

    You wield it like a gun.

    "As I mentioned and you ignored, "guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history".  If someone is determined to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not."

    Here you are making excuses for your guns, by saying that if someone is determined to make to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not.

    Lets name them off together: Knives, bats, cars, tire iron, and so on?

    The above is what is called pulling the other irrelevant weapons that aren't a gun, into the conversation, that have nothing to do with a gun, but it's apparently how you're trying to downplaying the negative gun talk from your mindset, by pulling those other irrelevant objects into to the conversation?

    Where the students who lost schoolmates, and the parents who lost their kids, and the families who lost loved ones as we'll, because a mass shooter killed them with guns, were they wrong to protest gun violence at the March For Our Lives rally in DC last year? 

    Who is more wrong when it comes to the gun violence brutality that the mass committed by killing innocent people with their guns?

    Are the parents, and the students, wrong for protesting gun violence, in your estimation?

    Or is the mass shooter, wrong for killing people with his guns? 

    "NONE of these proposed measures are aimed at criminals, they are all aimed at law abiding citizens.  They would have a negligible affect on crime, but a major impact on how, where, and even if one could defend himself."

    And then you end your comments with the above?

    It's all about you, having your guns isn't it? 

    You like having things your way, don't you?

    Guns don't kill people, and @CYDdharta likes having his guns, and wielding the 2nd Amendment, like a gun as well right? 

    Those innocent people killed by those guns, wielded by the mass shooters, the criminals, and the offenders, they got their way as well didn't they?

    Do you know who didn't get their way? 

    All of their victims, didn't get their way, because their right to live, got taken from them, by their shooting offenders, right? 


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1055 Pts
    TKDB said:
    @CYDdharta

    You own guns right?

    So you have a pro gun owner mentality?

    Look at how you talk about guns: 

    Guns don't kill people.

    Criminals and offenders are always going to commit crimes.

    It's amazing how you wield the 2nd Amendment with your mindset.

    You wield it like a gun.

    You don't own guns, you go to anti-gun protests.  So you have an gun ban mentality?  It's amazing how you wield crime victims with your mindset, you wield them like a poorly aimed gun.

    "As I mentioned and you ignored, "guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history".  If someone is determined to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not."

    Here you are making excuses for your guns, by saying that if someone is determined to make to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not.

    No one is making excuses, I'm just pointing out reality.

    Lets name them off together: Knives, bats, cars, tire iron, and so on?

    The above is what is called pulling the other irrelevant weapons that aren't a gun, into the conversation, that have nothing to do with a gun, but it's apparently how you're trying to downplaying the negative gun talk from your mindset, by pulling those other irrelevant objects into to the conversation?

    Trucks, bombs, airplanes...

    It's hardly irrelevant.  Guns played no role in the worst school attack in the US.  Guns played no role in the worst terrorist attack in the history of the planet.  More people are beaten to death in the US using no weapons than are killed with "assault rifles".

    Where the students who lost schoolmates, and the parents who lost their kids, and the families who lost loved ones as we'll, because a mass shooter killed them with guns, were they wrong to protest gun violence at the March For Our Lives rally in DC last year? 

    Who is more wrong when it comes to the gun violence brutality that the mass committed by killing innocent people with their guns?

    Are the parents, and the students, wrong for protesting gun violence, in your estimation?

    Or is the mass shooter, wrong for killing people with his guns?

    It's not an either or, the criminals and the people who want to ban guns are both wrong.

    "NONE of these proposed measures are aimed at criminals, they are all aimed at law abiding citizens.  They would have a negligible affect on crime, but a major impact on how, where, and even if one could defend himself."

    And then you end your comments with the above?

    It's all about you, having your guns isn't it? 

    You like having things your way, don't you?

    Guns don't kill people, and @CYDdharta likes having his guns, and wielding the 2nd Amendment, like a gun as well right? 

    Those innocent people killed by those guns, wielded by the mass shooters, the criminals, and the offenders, they got their way as well didn't they?

    Do you know who didn't get their way? 

    All of their victims, didn't get their way, because their right to live, got taken from them, by their shooting offenders, right?

    Nothing I've said was about me.  Guns are law abiding citizens' only defense against violent criminals.  Why don't these innocent people factor in your argument?  Why do you want more people victimized?
    Applesauce
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    edited March 31
    @CYDdharta

    It's fabulously educational, to watch how some use the internet, to turn it, into their own biased court of individualized opinion?

    "You don't own guns, you go to anti-gun protests.  So you have an gun ban mentality?  It's amazing how you wield crime victims with your mindset, you wield them like a poorly aimed gun."

    You're not the first internet debater, who likes to twist words around to suit your individual attitude.
     
    I'm pro humanity, but when people use GUNS to kill innocent kids, teenagers, and adults alike, those gun users are being anti humane aren't they, so because you own guns, you refuse to see it that way right? 

    "No one is making excuses, I'm just pointing out reality."

    No, you're not.

    Because reality doesn't belong to you, being that youre merely a part of it.

    So please, stop treating it, like you in a sense own it, and talking around the gun abusers who have made life and death decisions with their guns by taking other people's lives with them.

    Your pro gun talk makes you sound like a defense attorney, or a liberal?

    Please, which one are you? 

    "It's not an either or, the criminals and the people who want to ban guns are both wrong."

    This answer from you isn't good enough, reach deeper into your individual conscious, and try again.

    Again:
    Who is more wrong when it comes to the gun violence brutality that the mass committed by killing innocent people with their guns?

    Are the parents, and the students, wrong for protesting gun violence, in your estimation?

    Or is the mass shooter, wrong for killing people with his guns? 

    "Nothing I've said was about me.  Guns are law abiding citizens' only defense against violent criminals.  Why don't these innocent people factor in your argument?  Why do you want more people victimized?"

    Because with guns, those gun owners, have the overall ability to take another's life by pulling a trigger, and because of that fact, both gun owners, the "Legal, and the Illlegal gun owners, self own a responsibility on how they may treat people with their guns.

    When you say "why don't these innocent people factor in your argument?"

    Who factor wise are you referring to?  

    1) The innocent people who were killed by a gun wielded by a criminal? 

    2) Or maybe the rest of the country who doesn't own a gun, or who's life or lives, that haven't been affected yet by an offenders gun violence brutality?

    Can you please be more specific, about what "citizens," I should be factoring into my argument, according to how you engineered your statement towards me? 

    So that your posed question, gets to have the proper platform?
  • TKDBTKDB 84 Pts
    https://act.everytown.org/sign/gunsensevoter/

    "Are You a Gun Sense Voter?

    Gun sense is the simple idea that we can do much more to keep our families and communities safe from gun violence. It'’s the belief that we, as Americans, don’'t have to tolerate 31,000 deaths from gun violence every single year.

    If you believe that felons and domestic abusers shouldn’'t have access to guns; if you think guns don’'t belong in places like churches, schools, and playgrounds; if you think the right to life and liberty is just as important as the right to bear arms: You have gun sense."

    Applesauce
  • If anything the U.S isn't doing enough ... As an onlooker I can only say that if you were doing enough attrosities like the awful school shootings and the las Vegas massacre would not have taken place and sincere condolences go to all those affected by those awful events 
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