False information about guns - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial 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!

False information about guns
in Politics

By markemarke 334 Pts
Democrats have  tendency to want to disarm law-abiding Americans and even the police.  They do not like ICE officers and do not want federal law officers protecting federal properties in democrat-run cities.  Those tendencies are born from very bad judgment.  This report outlines the disinformation being propagated by leftists who seem willing to deceive in order to accomplish the disarming of America.

The tragically incompetent mayor of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot, appeared on CNN’s State of the Union this weekend to deflect attention from the horror show unfolding in her city by blaming interlopers for its spiking murder rate: “We are being inundated with guns from states that have virtually no gun control, no background checks, no ban on assault weapons — that is hurting cities like Chicago.”
Although these accusations have leveled by Chicago politicians for decades now, they are a myth.

For one thing, there is no state in the nation with “virtually no gun control” or “no background checks.” Every time anyone in the United States purchases a gun from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) — a gun store, a gun show, it doesn’t matter — the seller runs a background check on the buyer through the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) database. In some cases, the FFL checks to see if the buyer has passed a background check via a state-issued concealed-carry permit. In states that allow individual private sales, it is illegal to knowingly sell to anyone who you believe is obtaining a firearm for criminal purposes.

Those who cross state lines to buy guns undergo the same background check, and the sale is processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state. The exact same laws apply to all online sales.

The vast majority of Americans obtain their guns in this manner, and they rarely commit crimes. Around 7 percent of criminals in prison bought weapons using their real names. Fewer than 1 percent obtained them at gun shows. As the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer points out, there have been around 18 million concealed-carry permit holders over the past 15 years, and they have committed 801 firearm-related homicides over that span, or somewhere around 0.7 percent of all firearm-related murders. Concealed-carry holders not only are more law-abiding than the general population as a group; they are more law-abiding than law enforcement.

Studies of those imprisoned on firearms charges show that most often they obtain their weapons by stealing them or buying them in black markets. A smaller percentage get them from family members or friends.
On top of all this, federal law requires every FFL license holder to report the purchase of two or more handguns by the same person with a week to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. This is one of the reasons straw purchasers — people with a clean record who buy for criminals — spread their operations to other states. This is not unique to Illinois or Chicago. It has nothing to do with strict or lenient laws. It has mostly to do with cities and states failing to prosecute straw purchases.

Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.

The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.

Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.

Then, of course, the “assault-weapons bans” that Lightfoot brings up have absolutely no bearing on Chicago’s murder rate, even if such prohibitions actually worked. There were 864 murders in the state of Illinois in 2018 (the last year for which the FBI has full stats). Of homicides where the type of weapon is reported by law enforcement, 592 were perpetrated using handguns, 14 with rifles, and four with shotguns. Over 100 murders were committed using knives, other cutting instruments, hands, feet, and other types of weapons. And of the 14 “rifles” used, it’s almost surely the case that not all of them were “assault weapons.” Among the illegal guns recovered by Chicago law enforcement in 2018, 12,220 were handguns of some kind and 1,769 were rifles and shotguns.

In the states in Illinois’s neighborhood with no bans on “assault weapons,” the number of murders committed with a “rifle” is correspondingly small — ten in Indiana, eight in Tennessee, six in Kentucky, four in Wisconsin, and three in Mississippi.

It’s also worth pointing out that gun homicides dropped sharply in most cities after the national “assault weapons” expired in 2004, even though the AR-15 would correspondingly become one of the most popular weapons in the country. The AR-15 is an excellent home-defense weapon, but long guns aren’t conducive to criminality, despite what we see in movies. Tragically, AR-15s are often favored by psychotic mass shooters, but rarely by the murderers who plague Lightfoot’s city.

It keeps getting worse. Nearly 400 people have already been murdered in Chicago this year, around 100 more than in the entire year of 2019. On the night of May 29, 25 people were murdered and another 85 wounded by gunfire, more than any day in 60 years. And yet the mayor is appearing on TV to blame Mississippi and Texas. It is far more likely that black-market guns find their way to Chicago because the place has been a poorly run criminal mecca for decades.

Bad policies based upon misinformation and erroneous assumptions are causing multiple unnecessary deaths in America.


AlofRIGeorge_Horseall4acttliberalwithmorals
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @marke ;
    It is a lie that most Democrats want to disarm the public. What they actually want is common sense gun laws and other programs that could feasibly help reduce gun related injuries and suicides in particular.

    The straw man argument that "The're coming for our guns" gets all the media traction.
    independentlyJustAnAllMightFanliberalwithmoralsZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    It's a shame that this political Cosa-Nostra, previously known as an "administration", has generated so much lying and hatred. It' almost seems to be a "right of passage" for membership. No country overseas has confidence in U.S.. They "pitty" U.S. because we can't seem to control our well-armed animals! When we do, one half of our government throws up a roadblock of racism and lies. Will America EVER be great again? Not with the current, Russian friendly mob in power. 

    The above diatribe has few facts within it. The few that might come close are twisted out of much reality. The FACT that so many people with angry and racist attitudes can legally walk the streets with a weapon, even an ASSAULT weapon when it wouldn't be allowed in ANY other "peaceful" country, IS a "reality! Where does one find that particular "freedom" anywhere else?? The "right" to "bear arms" exists in other countries too with REASONABLE restrictions. That "right" takes into account the safety of the citizens of those countries. Here, there seems to be an idea that OUR citizens are responsible for their own protection, and those around them that don't wish to carry, seem to have lost the "right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, 'cause if they get in the way ......! 

    I know of no, there MAY be a FEW, Democrats that want to remove the Second Amendment. It was amended to the Constitution at a time when a musket was the "arm" to be born by citizens. A weapon that could fire 400 to over a thousand rounds a minute was unimaginable! Restricting these weapons of war from citizens is NOT "taking away their rights". Actually, as it is now, it COULD be considered such ... with a stretch. THAT needs to be fixed! 

    We do not live in 1860 Dodge City (in reality), now, and we do NOT have to carry a gun on the streets, to school and even church! It's called "civilization"! They HAVE it in other countries that allow people to have guns, we USED to have it HERE, and, funny thing, nobody worried about our 2nd Amendment. When we began to lose our mental facilities and kill school children by the dozens and mow them down in theaters and lounges ...  because the WRONG PEOPLE were allowed access to guns, that 2nd came into scrutiny, as it SHOULD HAVE! Nobody in any consequential numbers, want to do away with the 2nd. We want it made safe to preserve it!
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @Happy_Killbot

    Democrats could improve their argiments for even more experimental gun laws if they would openly expose the false propaganda like these erroneous statements made by the democrat mayor and other leading democrat figures.
    liberalwithmoralsAlofRI
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @AlofRI

    I don't agree with twisted democrat interpretations of the 2nd amendment.  Let them come up with better plans for removing guns from thugs while leaving guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans.  No law-abiding American should oppose realistic proposals which will confiscate guns from the hands of thugs while leaving guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens.
    liberalwithmoralsAlofRI
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    "No law-abiding American citizen should oppose realistic proposals which will confiscate guns from the hands of thugs while leaving guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens". WE AGREE! That's exactly what I want! We need the Second Amendment to DO that! As it is, It doesn't! So let's put some teeth in it!

    Why would a "law-abiding citizen" NEED an assault weapon?? I was a hell of a shot, won several matches. I loved shooting. I didn't have to "spray the target " to hit it! Law-abiding citizens when I was "growing up" had many guns. NONE were assault weapons! We STILL enjoyed shooting, still enjoyed guns. Didn't have ANY of the problems we have today! Let's face it! What many on the right want is to be able to overthrow the government ... if they feel the tingle in their thighs! NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Lots of people will die. The way to overthrow the government is the way Trump ... with Putin's help, is doing it! By spreading hate and discontent! If successful, THEY will take your guns .... first thing! An authoritarian government CAN'T AFFORD to have people with guns around! Think about it!
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Wrong argument.  Americans have honored the 2nd amendment for hundreds of years.  Modern opponents of traditional interpretations want to force their contorted interpreations on everyone else.  That is not reasonable nor logical.  If the answer to gun violence is to remove guns from the hands of the violent then let that be the focus.  Assault weapons are rarely used in most criminal acts of gun violence.  But when assault weapons are used to commit murder, they are most commonly used by mass murderers who are best stopped by law abiding citizens or cops with assault weapons, just like the Texas church shooter was stopped by an assault weapon in the hand of a private citizen.
    AlofRIliberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    I do have a problem with one aspect of your argument. People don't want to disarm the police. People just don't want to see more police added to crime ridden areas because studied and stats have showed that adding more policing does nothing to solve crime. It only increases arrests which leads to an increase of ex cons which leads to an increase of ex convict children who will have little of an economic/social/emotional safety net meaning they will be more likely to fall into gang culture leading to an overall increase of violent crime, especially homicides. When most say defund the police, they aren't advocating for anarchy they're advocating for a plan of social reform that will uplift members of crime ridden areas which will in turn, make the lives of police who cover these areas easier.
    Personally, I think owning and knowing how to operate a firearm is one of the most useful skills one can have.
    piloteerliberalwithmorals
  • all4acttall4actt 135 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Your argument makes no common sense.  

    So what I understand you saying is that crime ridden areas should be left to less police control because more police will cause more criminals to be taken off the street?

    So are you saying that we should just leave the criminals in place and that will some how make things better?  That it would stop the perpetuation of the children of these criminals from becoming criminals themselves?

    That by some how leaving these high crime areas to become even more under control of the criminal elements would some how make things better?

    What programs do you think are going to be more affective then getting the criminal elements off street?

    AlofRI
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    These people want the police disarmed:

    OUR MISSION

    The intention of DISARMTHEPOLICE.COM is to encourage our Police Departments to become more functional and less threatening to the public by removing deadly force from front-line officers. Doing so increases public and officer safety while increasing public cooperation.

    All too frequently we hear about police shootings against the public that result in death when, in fact, lethal force should ALWAYS be the last resort. The problems we're seeing in the US are:
    •  lethal force is being used prematurely 
    •  proliferation of a lack of trust toward law enforcement officers by the public
    •  "us vs. them"  mentality among law enforcement officers.

    The first step in improving the relationship between the public and police officers is to remove deadly force from the officer's belt. Doing so encourages public involvement and curtails officer aggressiveness which can easily escalate situations resulting in unnecessary arrests and bodily harm. The removal of deadly force will mandate procedural changes related to initial engagements.

    https://www.disarmthepolice.com/
    liberalwithmoralsAlofRI
  • edited July 29
    @all4actt
    No I'm not arguing for leaving all police out. I'm stating the fact that literally every time we tried to be harder on crime (war on drugs etc) it did nothing but raise crime. We have the largest prison pop globally yet have dozens of areas that are homicide centers. I don't see how me claiming that maybe instead of throwing more bodies at the situation probably isn't as good as an idea as actually fixing the root cause behind crimes, poverty. You get rid of poverty you get rid of crime.
    Remember prohibition and how that was a massive botch because all it did was increase homicide and gang violence? 
    So what elements do I feel would be more effective? Not creating criminals in the first place.
    Just how we reversed prohibition which in turn ended the black market that gangs fight over, we should legalize most drug substances and instead push for rehabilitation for drug sellers and offenders.
    Some of these criminals aren't really criminals at heart but rather people who were trapped between the choice of criminality or death/eviction/hunger and choose in their mind their lesser of the two evils. In most cases, gang members, drug dealers and drug addicts are people who didn't have the emotional support growing up and now lash out at society because they feel that they have been left behind. My plan wouldn't grant amnesty to all offenders, however it would include looking into circumstances of each offender thoroughly and depending on the case, push community service over federal prison. We've tried throwing the gang members in prison. Last time I checked, gang violence is still pretty high. By giving some criminals second chances we are actually saving money from our paychecks because these ex cons would almost surely become stuck in the welfare state and rely off of government assistance programs something that YOU would have to help pay for. By not introducing some to prison in the first place, they still have a chance at economic stability eliminating the need of government assistance saving you and I money. Also children who grow up in single parent households are more likely to do worse at school, have less of an emotional safety net, have less supervision which means they have higher chance of turning to crime. Fixing this would require installing sex education and easier access to contraceptives in these neighborhoods resulting in parents being more emotionally mature so that they aren't naive enough to rush into sexual relationships in addition to it allowing parents of these areas to have children when they are economically and emotionally stable. This combined with drug reform would lead to an increase of two parent households which will provide more economic, parental and emotional resources for children leaving said children more likely to succeed at school resulting in access to higher education eliminating poverty thus eliminating the need for crime. In addition, my plan would include an increase in trade schools in these areas to give african Americans and hispanics (the groups that suffer most from unemployment) other career opportunities. Speaking of schools my plan for reparations would be investing in government funded academies for middle and high school aged children that would have core curriculum but would also focus mainly on STEM. Blacks and latinos are the most likely to drop off of stem programs in college leaving them more likely to instead settle for 2 year degrees consequently resulting in lower paying careers which overall only furthers the generational wealth gap between races. By implementing these schools at an early age, we'd eliminate this. Also, the normal public schools would have to better the quality of their education because the more kids they lose the less funding they get. Ultimately this competition would lead to an increase of overall quality for children growing up in poor neighborhoods. The last major aspect I would include in my reparations would include tax incentives for small businesses. This couldn't work at it's fullest potential without proper financial education (something that people living near or below the poverty line don't have) so that would have to be a part of the tax incentive.
    Notice how my reparations aren't just throwing money or bodies at the problem, but basic social democratic reform.
    Now if you believe that installing more police which would ultimately only lead to more deaths from both sides and social unrest is a long term better plan than the one I briefly explained above then I would be happy to hear your reasoning on your position.
    I'm up for a good debate. Explain to me how my reasoning makes no sense when many other nations such as Portugal took my methods and in turn saw a decrease in crime?
    piloteerliberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    No where in that did it say remove the police. What they were arguing for is removing the level of lethal force officers have. Now, I don't fully agree with that position (if you look at my plan you will see how I stand on the matter) but I will not strawman their argument into being something it's not.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    I said they wanted to disarm the police, not remove the police.
  • @marke
    My apologies. My position is that police should be disarmed to some extent. 
    Honestly too much responsibility is being put on cops. They are expected to fix issues that only reform and education can solve. 
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Murderers do not need counsellors before cops.  First they need to be arrested and then the courts can recommend counselling.  The same thing goes for violent looters and arsonists.  They must be first arrested, with violence if necessary, and then offered treatment for their mental illness.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    Technically speaking, mental and emotional support is actually a far better way to prevent crime in the first place rather then just having an increase in police. A lot of these murders are just people who were indoctrinated into being a gang member because they would be met with violence, hunger and/or eviction if they didn't claim. Taking out the cogs in the machine isn't effective. We need to take out what makes the machine work in the first place, and that would be the black market on drugs and the gang leaders that run the operations. Our motto of being "tough" on crime has been a massive failure because we have the one of the highest murder rates of the 1st world while having the largest system and prison population ratio. By stuffing people who commit petty crimes into the prison system we are taking away their chance for economic stability which will in turn only create more people in the welfare state.
    By being tougher on crime you are literally shooting yourself in the foot because all you are creating is more violence and more money coming from your paycheck to go towards government assistance.
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    When a kid murders someone in cold blood he will have to suffer the consequences.  If he is old enough to be tried as an adult he could get the death penalty, even though he really did not know what he was doing in some respects.  Those poor girls under Manson's spell 50 years ago were convicted of murder and sentenced to death, although their sentences were later commuted to life.  Of course they were fools.  Of course they did not know what they were doing.  Of course 50 years later some are still crying in prison because they cannot get parole.  They admit they were .  They admit they were under evil influences.  But they are still in jail because that is justice.
  • @marke
    I've come to find out that justice while sounding good on paper is really nothing but an emotion to justify our inefficiency in our society. Some people will never be rehabilitated, some people can but we will never know if we insist that our justice system focuses solely on punishment and not trying to expand upon others ability to contribute to the economy. If your "justice" was so "just" then our crime rates wouldn't be so high. All your justice does is create a system where people aren't being given a chance to maximize their potential which results in economic and societal drains that we have to pay for. If you really want lower crime and if you really want justice then logically speaking you should be in favor of restorative justice because that lowers crime.
    independently
  • marke said:
    Democrats have  tendency to want to disarm law-abiding Americans and even the police.  
    Yes they do! Why should ordinary US citizens have access to dangerous weapons? How do we know they will not misuse them? Because they'll get arrested, you may say, but by the time someone has been shot, it is too late. Besides, why do we want to spread the message that owning guns is cool?
    liberalwithmoralsall4actt
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    We teach the elementary kids in our Christian school: Justice means those violent gangsters who attack cops and burn down buildings need to be arrested and thrown into jail for their crimes.
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    It is not my job to decide whether or not you should be allowed to own a gun.  If you commit a crime or if you are judged by the court to be a threat then you should not be allowed to own a gun.  Otherwise, you might want to buy several large high-powered assault weapons and plenty of ammunition just in case Biden wins the election and the democrats do away with the police.
  • edited July 30
    @marke
    And common sense dictates that the reason why America is still dealing with high amounts of crime relative to the rest of the devolved world is because it insist on just throwing more police at the problem instead of tackling poverty, single motherhood, heavy drug laws and poor access to mental/emotional help all of which are the core factors behind gang violence and homicide. 
    I'm being practical. Our response to crime has yet to proven to be effective in lowering the crime rate or prison system. Why should I take our measures seriously when other nations such as Portugal and Australia have focused more on restorative justice and in turn have yielded better results?
    To quote one of my other adversaries on this site, you are dancing around the issue. You keep trying to push your notion of heavier policing on me and I turn and point out that all that does is keep neighborhoods in poverty leading to an increase in crime, increases single motherhood and increases the number of people on the welfare state which you and I have to then pay for.
    liberalwithmoralsindependently
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    @all4actt

    Just going out and imprisoning criminals will only exacerbate an already bad problem in the US. The United States has the largest imprisoned population on earth, and we have the highest percentage of our population incarcerated. Guess who has to pay for all of that imprisoning? Guess who thinks that is a terrible idea and doesn't like having to pay higher taxes just to keep dark skinned people in prison (hint: it's me)? The reason our prison system is bursting at the seems is because many of us think just putting people in prison fixes the problem of crime, when in fact it only causes more crime. 

    It can be easily demonstrated how a justice system that focuses on rehabilitation rather than incarceration is far more effective at actually reducing crime. Another good idea is to stop imprisoning people for non-violent crimes and focus instead on rehabilitating them. So when @JustAnAllMightFan argued that deploying more officers doesn't actually fix any problems, it made total sense because it fits in line with the data about law enforcement and criminal justice and how our system is now failing us.  
    JustAnAllMightFanliberalwithmoralsindependently
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Just so you know.  Summer of Love leftist Durkan characterized the looting, burning and violence in the Democrat Peoples Socialist Republic of Chaz as something beautiful to be embraced, noit wrecked by arrests.  However, when these "Summer of Love" protesters showed up on her doorstep she screamed bloody murder and demanded the police come arrest the morons for violating her civil rights and threatening her family.

    What a difference a few geographical miles makes in some people's minds in determining whether a protest is peaceful or not.
    liberalwithmorals
  • I find it funny how many Christian's says they are agasint violence, yet they own guns. A guns sole purpose is to kill that's it. I wonder what " jesus christ" would think about his worshipers wielding guns. Co covering he was all about nonviolence. @marke
  • @marke
    Our protest are literally no different from the thousands of working class uprisings throughout history. It's funny because the same founding father you have as your profile picture literally lead violent riots against the upper class that enforced unfair sanctions on the public. Today's riots are only an expression of anger many feel stemming from the government's insistence to not provide healthcare reform in a global pandemic, to rather push for budget increases for an area of spending we already outdo the world multiple times over in, to pump trillions into a stock market that is vastly owned by the top 10%, instead of issuing adequate stimulus relief. Our inability to do so is the leading reason why we can not get out of this pandemic because people are having to risk their health to try and provide for themselves in a time where they shouldn't. Literally all of the violence we've seen recently is due to our own government's incompetence. Yet if you insist on blaming those who are left without any choice but to take action rather than the root cause of this destruction in the first place, then you are essentially cutting the tip off of a blade of grass and being shocked when it grows back.

  • Democrats could improve their argiments for even more experimental gun laws if they would openly expose the false propaganda like these erroneous statements made by the democrat mayor and other leading democrat figures.


    And the propaganda would be what? 
    These erroneous statements would be? 
    @marke
  • I can think of at least 12 shoot shooting were assault rifles were used@marke
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @liberalwithmorals

    Guns are very handy when it comes to controlling violence.  I pulled a gun on a guy who was threatening violence one time and he calmed down immediately.  I did not have to shoot anyone and the gun was essential in the situation to keep everyone calm so nobody got hurt.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Civilized people work through more diplomatic means to advocate change.  Uncivilized animals burn down stranger's businesses and assault cops.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @liberalwithmorals

    I am shocked by modern politicians justifying terroristic violence as though such violence has legitimacy.  Imagine what the left might have done to Trump if he had not condemned the violence in Charlottesville.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @liberalwithmorals

    Gun violence in America is far more prevalent with hand guns than with rifles.  I commend the private citizen who used his assault rifle to stop the shooter at Sutherland Springs.
  • edited July 30
    @marke
    I'm pretty sure people would rather take up civilised means rather then risks their lives through violence. If people are turning to violence for change perhaps they've tried and exhausted all of their other options? By your logic, the person you have as your literal profile picture is an "uncivilized animal".
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    I am reminded of the story told of a British army officer who stopped a native man in India or somewhere from 'honor-killing" his wife.  The native objected, "But that is an honored custom in our country."  The officer answered, "We also have an honored custom in our country.  If you kill your wife then we hang you by the neck until you are dead."

    It does not matter about savages in backwards countries, in America we send the violent, the arsonist, the murderer and lawbreaker to jail.
  • @marke
    Again, you're missing the core of my argument. A majority of lawbreakers aren't that way just because. There are social and economic factors that push those in poor environments to make criminal choices. Hence, my argument is that we reverse said factors and environments which will in turn reduce crime.
    Virtually we're going in circles. You'll make the claim that we need stronger Law and Order to prevent crime. In turn, I argue that we have been trying said method and it has done nothing but increase the issue in addition to the fact that we have the results from multiple different nations who geared closer towards rehabilitation which lead to less crime. This is usually followed by you using an anecdote or a nearly constructed grammatical salad which holds little bearing to the debate at hand but ultimately still upholds the same fallacy that you insist on standing on.
    It is a fact that your method will only lead to more thus more people dependant on government assistance thus once more, a greater economic strain on us.
    Why are you arguing for a method that directly goes against your original goal?
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    When factors such as poverty push poor people to commit crimes then American laws and law officers should push those poor people into jails.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    It is not my job to decide whether or not you should be allowed to own a gun.  If you commit a crime or if you are judged by the court to be a threat then you should not be allowed to own a gun.  Otherwise, you might want to buy several large high-powered assault weapons and plenty of ammunition just in case Biden wins the election and the democrats do away with the police.
    Why would I want to own a gun? There have been many stories of good guys with guns shooting other good guys because they thought they were bad guys, and other incidents of this sort. None of it would have happened, and the resulting deaths would have been averted, if no one had owned a gun in the first place. I struggle to see why the police should be allowed to own guns as well. Some policeman, somewhere, on some day, will accidentally shoot an innocent civilian. One unnecessary death is one unnecessary death too many.
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited July 30
    marke said:
    @liberalwithmorals

    Guns are very handy when it comes to controlling violence.  I pulled a gun on a guy who was threatening violence one time and he calmed down immediately.  I did not have to shoot anyone and the gun was essential in the situation to keep everyone calm so nobody got hurt.
    @marke

     Guns are not made to "keep everyone calm", and it is not legal to use a gun to keep a situation regulated. Unless that person who was threatening violence had a weapon, then you were in the wrong both morally and legally. I'm a libertarian who dislikes the idea of making guns illegal, and I dislike it when people misuse guns to add credence to the idea that they should be banned. Unless that person had a weapon, you are doing a great disservice to your own cause.  Regardless, even if they did have a weapon, but you neglected to mention that here, it makes you look like some kind of armed social warrior. Arming ourselves for the purpose of enforcing some kind of social calmness is not a right that is protected by the constitution. You are doing a bad job making your case, which in turn is harming our right to bear arms. So, thanks for nothing.      
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 436 Pts
    edited July 30
    marke said:
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    I am reminded of the story told of a British army officer who stopped a native man in India or somewhere from 'honor-killing" his wife.  The native objected, "But that is an honored custom in our country."  The officer answered, "We also have an honored custom in our country.  If you kill your wife then we hang you by the neck until you are dead."
    @marke
    I'm not aware that this is or was an honoured custom in India, but if it was, then the army officer's actions were a prime example of systemic racism at its worst.
    It doesn't matter about American rules and customs, if you're in a country, you play by the rules of that country. No excuses.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    In that case, in America we do not burn and loot businesses as if there is nothing wrong with that.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Several of our church members carry concealed weapons almost all the time.  There will be no Dylan Roof type incidents in our church.  Several of our school teachers also carry concealed weapons, although you would never know it if they had not told you because those guns remain concealed.  But there will be no Sandy Hook type of mass shootings in our school either because of those precautions.
  • @marke
    I do not support the practice of honour-killing, but it is important to respect cultural traditions. The army officer's actions were obviously racist and driven by systemic racism, and also quite arrogant to believe that the rules of the UK should apply in India as well. 
    marke said:
    In that case, in America we do not burn and loot businesses as if there is nothing wrong with that.
    No we do not, I never said we did.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @piloteer

    I am not moved to accept modern proposals for disarming police and citizens in efforts to bring peace.  Those ideas are wrong and they are .  I prevented a situation from getting out of hand and personally know of two other instances where just flashing a gun stopped dangerous situations from becomming disastrous or deadly.  In favor common sense, not foolish new ideas being floated by 'woke' kids without knowledge and experience.
    piloteer
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Several of our church members carry concealed weapons almost all the time.  There will be no Dylan Roof type incidents in our church.  Several of our school teachers also carry concealed weapons, although you would never know it if they had not told you because those guns remain concealed.  But there will be no Sandy Hook type of mass shootings in our school either because of those precautions.
    Maybe not in your church, but in some church, somewhere in the world, an innocent civilian will be killed, either on purpose or accidentally. One unnecessary death is one unnecessary death too many.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Dylan Roof did not kill just one.  In our church one death from a Dylan Rood is one death too many, which is why so many of our church members are prepared to utilize deadly force against some Dylan Roof barbarian who seeks to harm our church members.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Dylan Roof did not kill just one.  In our church one death from a Dylan Rood is one death too many, which is why so many of our church members are prepared to utilize deadly force against some Dylan Roof barbarian who seeks to harm our church members.
    @marke
    See? This just adds on to the problem. If Dylan Roof shoots you, you shoot Dylan Roof. And perhaps a church member may accidentally shoot another church member. If there had been strict gun control, no one would have been shot in the first place.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    You have an unrealistic opinion that crooks would be unable to obtain guns on the black market if gun laws forced all law-abiding Americans to give up support for the 2nd amendment and willingly disarm themselves.
  • marke said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    You have an unrealistic opinion that crooks would be unable to obtain guns on the black market if gun laws forced all law-abiding Americans to give up support for the 2nd amendment and willingly disarm themselves.
    Currently, it's illegal only to fire a gun, not to own one. Crime could be averted early if police were able to arrest people found to be in possession of guns.
  • piloteerpiloteer 887 Pts
    edited July 30
    @marke

    Again, you do more to harm the cause of keeping our right to bear arms than good. The new "vigilante justice" idea is no different than social justice, it's just the kind of social justice touted by non-liberals. It is a modern proposal. It is also not a right that is guaranteed by the constitution, nor should it be. Since when did it become Ok for a normal citizen without any law enforcement credentials or obviously without any credentials on knowledge of our constitution to be the judge, jury, and executioner of a social setting? It didn't become Ok, and your argument is no different than the modern influx of anti-constitutional thought that is invading this country from both sides of the isle.

    You may or may not have actually pulled a gun on someone to "keep the peace", but regardless of whether you did or not, you've done nothing here but demonstrate that you are not responsible enough to have guns, and you've also discredited your own cause here. We all know that if you didn't actually pull a gun on someone, you won't admit to that here now that you've made that claim. But know that I will be perfectly satisfied by the fact that if you didn't actually do it, you'll think to yourself that I am right about the damage you've done to your own argument and our right to bear arms.

    Our right to bear arms was put in place for us to be able to protect ourselves, not to be some kind of Charles Bronson with a self made clarion call to regulate society as you see fit. What if you have some sort of religious agenda, and you disregard other citizens rights to not have to abide by your religious beliefs, but instead you choose to impose your religious beliefs on others? What if you ate lead paint chips when you were young, and it turned out to be a habit that you were never able to kick as you got older so now your brain is as useful as country music? And now you think you should be allowed to be armed and be an enforcer of whatever morality that may or may not be affected by your lead paint addiction?!?! How 'bout, no.

    Or you could think about what you are saying here and realize that you're just as affective as those "artistic debaters" who purposely portray themselves as arguing against what they actually believe, but they purposely argue badly against what they actually believe to make their opposing viewpoint look really bad (although, you may actually be doing just that). So, if you're done here little Markey, why don't you just go ahead and slip into your jammies and go watch a half hour of spongebob before it's time for bed. Just leave the adult talk to the adults. Thanks sweetie!!!          
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @xlJ_dolphin_473

    Criminals regularly violate existing gun laws.  Passing more laws will not make them more law-abiding.  Confoscating guns from law-abiding citizens will quite likely escate the violence and murders just like defunding and hog-tying the police has done.
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @piloteer

    Sadly, guns do kill people, as was demonstrated in this video of a woman who shot at three armed intruders in her home at night.

    - Woman confronts three armed invaders with deadly force.

    Here is a site which locates more than a thousand places in the US where victims have defended themselve from assaults or invasions with deadly force.

    https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?msa=0&mid=1cpkpcGIq4GXtQHFzjfVWgsROFs8&ll=35.24154157957605,-100.13372842189082&z=8 - 1317 cases of victims defending themselves against armed assailants with peresonal firearms.


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