Whats your opinion? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com

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.


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!

Whats your opinion?
in United States

I'd like to hear what you think of what this man has to say.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • Where is the legitimate proof, that what this fellow is saying is true, based upon your interpretation of his word's? 

    "What he is saying is why should law abiding citizens who happen to own guns be punished or threatened to be punished everytime some decides he wants to kill a bunch of people."

    There should be 1000% Accountability for every gun in the United States, legal and illegal, and if some have an issue with that type of nationwide accountability, then there's a mentality problem, that the Second Amendment, does not cover, or makes exceptions for the legal gun owners, who have committed mass shooting crimes, does it?

    Or the criminals, and the offenders, who have committed gun violence crimes, with their illegal guns, does it?

    So again, the Second Amendment as it's currently written, fails to bring, fair, and, equal representation, to the rest of the country, that doesn't own gun, or doesn't want to own a gun, now does it?  
  • From Twitter:

    Guns are killing our...  *Christians in church *Jews in synagogue *children in school *store customers *mall shoppers *concert fans *movie audiences *restaurant patrons ...and all Senate Republicans can do is keep kissing the #NRA's blank... #GunControlNow 

  • @all4actt I completely agree with what he said. 
    "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking...is freedom."-Dwight D. Eisenhower

    "It is not strange...to mistake change for progress."-Millard Fillmore

    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand

    "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."-Barry Goldwater

  • I'm not even gay, but that guy's speech was so good I'd blow him. "Tell me more about our rights *gag* *gag* *gag*"
  • I  don't WANT to take anyone's "rights" away. I don't WANT to take anyone's guns away, but, when you have an epidemic you HAVE to do something to stop it. We have an epidemic of gun violence in THIS country. If you have an epidemic of measles, you don't spread more measles around, you counter them! 

    When I was growing up, and actually, until I got into my late 50's, we had guns around. I had guns (still do). They were never a big problem. Then came the NRA, which I used to be a proud member of, telling U.S. we had a BIG PROBLEM and we needed more guns to solve it! In fact, we HAD THE RIGHT to solve it …. their way. Not the way it always HAD been solved, but, by ourselves! Screw law enforcement. Give the people more firepower … even more than the police had at that time. That'll fix our problem!

    Fast forward to today, the problem has increased at a rate about equal to the increase of weaponry around the country. If the amount of money spent on guns was spent on law enforcement, and the law was the better armed entity, we might have turned it around, but, gun purchasing is much more palatable than spending it in taxes for law enforcement, so, we die.

    NO other country has as many guns, NO other country has as many gun deaths, NO other country allows assault weapons to be distributed like candy bars.
    Just sayin'. :warning:
  • This guy made a strong argument. That's all I can say on this right now as I have only just looked at it briefly, and only once.

  • @AlofRI

    Then what do you see as a reasonable solution?

    I really don't think that legal gun ownership is the problem.

    I think we have a mentallity and mental illness problem.

    Most of the deaths caused by shootings these days seem to be either gang related or someone with a mental illness.
  • TKDBTKDB 615 Pts
    No where in the #2A does it say that legal gun owners, or the illegal gun owners, have the right to bear illegal arms.

    Or the right to use those illegal arms to hurt innocent people with them

  • My opinion is that the US as a country, has a deeply psychotic relation with guns in general... Pro or anti, both sides are (more often than not) irrational when it comes to this issue... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    So you think that America has more mental illness than any other country in the world? Personally, I don't think Americans are THAT much more mentally deranged. If we ARE, we are a danger to the world!
    I also think legal gun ownership is fine. A few years ago we considered assault weapons "illegal gun ownership". That should not have changed. There would be many living that are now dead because we changed that. That was a bit of mental derangement brought on by a few mentally deranged individuals that wanted money and cared not how many would die so they could get it. Sad. I had guns when I was young, still do. My friends had them too. I guess the U.S. has developed more mental problems in the later generations. I didn't see it coming. I DID see a change in attitudes, in the belief in our country, in the feeling that individuals had rights …. and screw anyone else's. It didn't use to be that way. That's not "mental illness", that's ego and arrogance! There's also a big uptick in white superiority … that has been one type of "mental illness" that was the excuse for a few deaths.

    We used to think more like JFK when he said: "This country was founded by many men of many different countries and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." He was working on an expansion of that "equality" we had been lax to consider when a mentally ill individual, (some would say), took away HIS basic right. He was NOT mentally ill. He was someone who wanted things HIS way! That's what some call mentally ill today.

    The President before him had it right also when he said: "A people who values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." Owning a gun is a privilege, using it as an arrogant RIGHT is using it without principle. It's a bit of a stretch, but, I suppose some would call that "mentally ill". 
    I say that defense is a farce, spread by those who still don't want that money pit to dry up, regardless of how many lives it costs. Life, today, is not a right, we have NO RIGHT to complete it! We DO have Second Amendment rights, though! Nice.:anguished: 

  • TKDBTKDB 615 Pts
    edited October 2019

    "My opinion is that the US as a country, has a deeply psychotic relation with guns in general... Pro or anti, both sides are (more often than not) irrational when it comes to this issue."

    Is your above argument, at all supported by the #2A, as it's currently written?

    The United States, has a self inflicted anti law, verses law problem.

    With some supporters standing behind the criminals, and offenders, and making excuses for those same individuals.
  • @TKDB
    You said>>>No where in the #2A does it say that legal gun owners, or the illegal gun owners, have the right to bear illegal arms.

    Or the right to use those illegal arms to hurt innocent people with them

    What does the issue of illegal gun ownership have to do with what this man had to say.  He is expressing the same frustrations that many legal gun owners have when being presented with the idea of being penalized for the illegal acts of others.  You are familiar with the statistics of how many people legally owned guns there are compared to how many of those owners commit crimes with those guns.  No one I know is promoting the illegal ownership of guns.  The problem with illegally owned guns is a completely seperate issue.  An answer to illegal ownership is a question nobody can answer.  That is a problem law enforcement has been trying to answer forever. 

    As far as taking guns and sever restriction go ask Australia.  The results ofvtheir gun restrictions has actually resulted in more guns in their country then they had before. 
  • all4actt said:
    As far as taking guns and sever restriction go ask Australia.  The results ofvtheir gun restrictions has actually resulted in more guns in their country then they had before. 
    Misleading or disingenuous, your pick...

    True, Australians now own more guns in total than they did before the 1996 crackdown, according to figures from 2016 - the last time they were comprehensively studied.

    But gun ownership per capita has dropped by 23% during the same time, far fewer people now have a gun in their home but some people have a lot more guns. 

    In the past 30 years, the number of households with at least one gun has declined by 75%.

    The number of gun-related homicides decreased by 57% between 1989-90 and 2013-14, according to the most recent official figures.

    The number of people who died from gunshot wounds dropped by 63% in the same period.

    The rate of gun-related crime had been trending downwards since before 1996, but the rate of decline doubled after the law changes. There has been no significant spikes or resurgence in gun crime, suicide accounts for the majority (70%) of gun deaths in Australia.

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • TKDBTKDB 615 Pts
    Stephen Paddock, was a legal gun owner.

    And the Second Amendment, didn't give him the right to bear legal arms against his mass shooting victims.

    And the millions of illegal arms owners, aren't enabled by the Second Amendment, to own their illegal arms either.
  • @AlofRI

    I don't think it is just mental illness it is also a mentallity.  So many people that commit murder it is not due to a mental illness it is due to the individuals values.  Which are generally established by their environment.  Whether it was the way they were raised or in the case of gang members the environment we choose. I would still argue that most mass shootings have been due to some sort of mental illness mixed with some screwer up ideologies.

    What has changed mostly in my opinion is the way we raise our children. Like for instance the way I was raised (not to say it is the only right way).  I was raised not to  take things so as personally as so many do these days.  If someone doesn't know you then how can you take what they are saying about you personalky?  If your feelings get hurt either talk about it or live with it.  I was taught to think before I act or speak and consider the consequences and to except those consequences.  No excuses.  I was also was taught violence of any kind was only to be used in self defense and if you get angry to use your words or just walk away.  They were simple rules that were deeply in grained in me and my brothers and have always served us well.  Unfortunately, all too many people either were never taught these rules or for whatever reason have chose to ignore them. 

    I have noticed in my kids generation that a lot of people around them were not taught these rules and were instead raised to be extremely sensitive with the thought that someone owed them something , a lack of personal responsibility.  Another problem is this thought that all kids are winners and should get a trophy or ribbon whether they earned it or not.  It seems to encourage a lack of work ethic while not teaching individuals how to deal with losses which leaves them completely unable to deal with the real world as adults.  People are not teaching their children how to get past losses, move on and maybe work a little harder next time.

    Well that is my rant for the day and believe me I could say a lot more on the subject but it is not what this debate is about except to say that these are some of the problems I think are attributing to so many of the problems we are having these says.
  • He's dead wrong ,first there is no right to own a gun, the reason there is so much crime its because  of the policies this man supports , and the stuff he says are wrong, its sounds logical bjut if you lok at the facts
    lax gun laws make it easier for criminals to get guns https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2012/12/15/the-gun-control-that-works-no-guns and the whole concept of using a gun for self defense is problematic , a gun in your home simply increases the chance of a tragic accident thats all you dont need a gun https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/  

    Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

    1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

    We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use.  We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.  We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

    Hemenway, David.  Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates.  Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.  1997; 87:1430-1445.

    Hemenway, David.  The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events.  Chance (American Statistical Association).  1997; 10:6-10.

    Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David.  The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.  1997; 16:463-469.


    4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments, and are both socially undesirable and illegal

    We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah.  Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys.  Injury Prevention.  2000; 6:263-267.


    5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense

    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense.  All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

    Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah.  The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey.  Violence and Victims.  2000; 15:257-272.


    6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime

    Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.  We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

    Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David.  In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home.  Social Science and Medicine.  2000; 50:285-91.


    7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense

    We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17 years, which asked questions about gun threats against and self-defense gun use by these young people.  We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.  Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

    Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents.  Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.  2004; 158:395-400.


    8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

    Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.

    We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration.  Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires.  Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

    May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R.  When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees.  Medscape General Medicine.  2000; June 28. www.medscape.com


    9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens

    Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot.  Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot.  To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care.  But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

    May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R.  Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees.  Journal of Trauma.  2000; 48:130-132.

    May, John P; Hemenway, David.  Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot?  Injury Prevention.  2002; 8:236-238.


    11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions

    Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases).  Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action.  Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.

    This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use.   It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

    Hemenway D, Solnick SJ.  The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011.  Preventive Medicine.  2015; 79: 22-27.

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

  • In order to save some money, I moved to a pretty bad neighborhood. I have become a victim of crime twice over the last couple of months alone. There are shady individuals walking around all the time, and even now, at 1:30 am, I see some thuggish-looking guys outside my apartment.

    Where is the police? Oh, they will come in 15-20 minutes if you call them. Come, write down your information and disappear, while you are spending a small fortune buying back the things that were stolen/destroyed.

    I am not planning to buy a gun myself, but people who think that people should be deprived of means to defend themselves and rely solely on the law enforcement are very detached from the realities of life in a huge decentralised country.
  • @billbatard

    While it is true that most legal gun owners choose to use their guns as deterents rather than just shooting them you have got to admit they are a affective deterent.

    Case infact:  I live in a country township where the last murder that took place was in 2015 and before that I believe there had not been one in over 10 years.  The kids here growup with guns most using them in competitve shooting or hunting.  We did have a case of a home invasion where while his parents were under threat from a person high on drugs and the kid had access to his rifle (which I am completely against a child have that kind of access to a firearm) and came out of his room with the gun and the man ran off.  If he had not come out with that gun who knows what would have happened to that family.  

    So I would say even in a town like mine having a gun was an affective deterent to what could have been a very bad situation.

    Others that live in areas like the man was referring to where he has heavy gang activity a couple of blocks away, I think he has a right to keep his firearms for the real threat of a intruder who probably who wouldn't think twice about shootin him or his family since that seems to be the mentallity of most hard core gang members.  Do you really think that law enforcement would make it to his house in time to defend them?  You can site or conduct as many studies as you like but the fact is when confronted with an immediate threat there is no way law enforcement can get there in time to proctect you.

    Actual 911 call by someone with a gun trying to get the police there while hiding in a closet in attempt to not have to shoot 

    This whole incident took 12min 34 seconds.  Obviously the police did not have the time to protect him.

    Here is another in which the woman was begging for police help but they were not able to get to her in time.  

    If those two are not enough for you check youtube for more instances where gun owners are forced to use their guns b/c law enforcement is not able to get there in time.  Just google self defence shooting while on the phone with 911.

    Maybe you should focus a study on those people who truly had no choice and would likely have ended up dead or seriously injured had they not been armed.
  • @MayCaesar

    While I agree with you that you cannot rely on police coming to your aid in a time to prevent a crime, I don't think deadly force should be used simply to protect property.  Afterall, while it is a pain in the butt to replace property a persons life should always be valued more than any property you may have.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top


| 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

Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch