Should we have gun control, and or gun ban? - 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 largest online debate platform globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Should we have gun control, and or gun ban?

Debate Information

No, that gives the evil one to much power.
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • piloteerpiloteer 1222 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Who's "the evil one". I happen to know of an evil family down the street and I find them to be rather pleasant and misunderstood. Maybe you should think about what you've said. 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42ScienceRules
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1287 Pts   -   edited February 17
    Gun control. With the number and TYPES of guns in this country, they HAVE to be a bit more strict, than, say, Canada. Sorry, but, we have been SO loose with the gun lobby we HAVE to make up some ground.

    If by "the evil one" you mean St. Pierre of the NRA, you're right, he HAS had too much power. (I believe that was his name?)
    PlaffelvohfenDarthTimonUnknownArtistZeusAres42




  • anarchist100anarchist100 332 Pts   -   edited February 17
    @AlofRI ;piloteer
    No by the evil one I mean the government.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaZeusAres42AlofRI
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100 Neither.
    anarchist100CYDdhartaJohn_C_87
  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -   edited February 17
    yes, a gun ban or gun control works. 
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    Control yes, ban no...
    ZeusAres42AlofRIDebater123
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  
    We do have gun control and we tried a gun ban, they've been dismal failures.  Gun control doesn't work.
    AlofRIZeusAres42
  • @ Plaffelvohfen, Starlord616
    In basic principle are we officially giving up attempts to control the improper use of lethal force? 

    Jinks!
    CYDharta

  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    it does tho @CYDdharta
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    why not a full ban? @Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -   edited February 17
    It doesn't tho @Starlord616
    ZeusAres42
  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    It doesn't tho @Starlord616
    Here are some examples:

    Following the Port Arthur incident, Australia implemented the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) 
    There have been a number of studies published on the impact of the NFA on firearm-related deaths in Australia.
    According to a 2011 summary of the research by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, a number of studies suggested beneficial effects from the law changes, with a reduction in mass shootings, and a reduction in the rate of firearm-related deaths (both homicides and suicides) overall.
    Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following.

    Data from other countries suggests there’s a link between reduced availability of guns and fewer suicides. One study found that after the Israel Defence Forces stopped letting soldiers bring weapons home on the weekends, suicide rates dropped by 40%.

    When people in the US were allowed to start buying military-style firearms with high-capacity magazines, the number of people killed in gun massacres (defined as shootings in which at least six people die) shot up 239%. By contrast, after the 1994 ban on assault weapons went into effect, the number of gun massacre deaths decreased by 43%

    One study, for example, looked at Missouri's 2007 repeal of its law requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which in effect repealed the state's background check requirement. This study found that after 2007, Missouri's homicide rate jumped by 25%. No other changes in law or circumstance appear to be able to explain the increase.

    I can add more if you would like.
    ZeusAres42




  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -  
    A ban would never work in the US it’s cultural and part of American society . I’m anti gun regards citizens carrying guns and happy to live in a gun free society .

    Most Americans when asked why they own a gun state for protection then spend hours telling you how safe their society is and how unnecessary a gun actually is . You know something is seriously wrong in your society when you need armed security at schools 
    ZeusAres42AlofRI
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616

    For many reasons, here's a non-exhaustive list... 

    1. Hunting is a legitimate activity...
    2. There are a lot of remote & rural locations where wildlife is a real danger...
    3. Objectively speaking, guns are tools and do nothing by themselves...
    4. It's not realistically enforceable... 
    AlofRIZeusAres42UnknownArtist
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616

    For many reasons, here's a non-exhaustive list... 

    1. Hunting is a legitimate activity...
    2. There are a lot of remote & rural locations where wildlife is a real danger...
    3. Objectively speaking, guns are tools and do nothing by themselves...
    4. It's not realistically enforceable... 
    1. hunting is a legitimate activity which doesn't require guns let alone automatic rifles. Furthermore, hunting is rarely anything other than a hobby in the 21st century USA.

    2. I forgot that people put out fires with bullets.

    3. sure if we had guns that no one touched no one would get shot. but I hope you understand they are made to be weapons and manufactured to be lethal unlike a screwdriver (legitimate tool).

    4. not overnight but over time it could be expected. it's not like its never been completed anywhere else before.

  • @Dee
    A ban would never work in the US it’s cultural and part of American society . I’m anti gun regards citizens carrying guns and happy to live in a gun free society .

     A ban does not work anywhere. This is already statistically shown by the numbers of abortions on the global scale which is an illegal admission to murder and not a really even and actual murder as United State. There are more surgical deaths globally by admission the firearms deaths. Creating the need for new studies to be conducted does not mean an issue of abuse of lethal force had been resolved. None of this neglecting the issue of Common defense for the general welfare of both armed service and civil service in the weight brought to bear on lethal force. It is wrong to kill not use lethal force when necessary.

    Okay, we will look past the profiling in the idea that America is to blame for the failure of not regulating lethal force in that statement made above. Take away guns lowers gun death is basically true as a united state by hs no bearing on applications of improper lethal force, people do stop killing with a gun they do not stop killing. When taken away people who kill become more resourceful and as lethal force is their motivation the law is in essence completely ineffective. Law is a statistically working piece of machinery for litigation and provides liberty in the control of crime as criminal cases become much easier to resolve as accidents, close by resolution, or remain unsolved with expence.

    However, this issue does not provide for a weight to be legally carried by its citizen's population which is a voluntary amendment of protection as civil responsibility for any nation's own armed services responsibilities for lethal force in the citizen's protection from hostile forces. No longer the burden of all people this then becomes the very conditions that are used to institute forced slavery. Moving slavery from a legal institution of punishment by a due court ruling subject to appeal.
  • @Starlord616
    There is one reason...
    One reason only.

    The weight of lethal force by firearm for any democratic government places on its armed service shall be equal to that place on civil constituents who are to pay to arm the servants of armed services. It may become necessary in the line of Duty a Military order becomes necessary to relieve someone of their command on a permitted scale. The difference between inappropriate lethal force and appropriate lethal force is met by the representation of the burden requiring relief must be met. I do not understand the burden someone has undertaken is not a just reason for assuming command so the burden can continue unattended.

  • How about this for Gun Control:





  • Or this:





  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  

    Here are some examples:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6866325/There-400-000-guns-Australia-1996-Port-Arthur-Massacre.html

    Following the Port Arthur incident, Australia implemented the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) 
    There have been a number of studies published on the impact of the NFA on firearm-related deaths in Australia.
    According to a 2011 summary of the research by the Harvard Injury Control Research Centre, a number of studies suggested beneficial effects from the law changes, with a reduction in mass shootings, and a reduction in the rate of firearm-related deaths (both homicides and suicides) overall.
    Their research also showed that while there had been 13 mass shootings (using the definition of five or more people killed) in the 18 years before the law changes, there had been none in the 22 years following.

    Data from other countries suggests there’s a link between reduced availability of guns and fewer suicides. One study found that after the Israel Defence Forces stopped letting soldiers bring weapons home on the weekends, suicide rates dropped by 40%.

    When people in the US were allowed to start buying military-style firearms with high-capacity magazines, the number of people killed in gun massacres (defined as shootings in which at least six people die) shot up 239%. By contrast, after the 1994 ban on assault weapons went into effect, the number of gun massacre deaths decreased by 43%

    One study, for example, looked at Missouri's 2007 repeal of its law requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, which in effect repealed the state's background check requirement. This study found that after 2007, Missouri's homicide rate jumped by 25%. No other changes in law or circumstance appear to be able to explain the increase.

    I can add more if you would like.

    The Australian National Firearms Agreement was useless.  Australia's homicide rate was dropping before the Port Arthur attack, and continued at the same pace after passage of the NFA.  According to a study by the Univ of Melbourne

    Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

    It's hard to come to any other conclusion considering there are more privately owned guns in Australia now than before the NFA was passed.

    I couldn't care less about mass shootings.  It's a meaningless stat used to by gun banners to push their agenda.  Would you prefer 1980's stats, when there were fewer mass shooting victims, but the murder rate was more than twice as high?  Gun banners use the mass shooting stat to obscure the fact that no additional laws/rules/restrictions are needed to reduce the murder rate.  Aside from some of the years AntiFA and BLM, Inc. have been active, it has been falling fairly steadily since 1991.

    The results of the 1994 "Assault Weapons" ban were similar (and similarly useless) to Australia's overreaction to the Port Arthur shooting.  The murder rate was already dropping before the ban was enacted, and continued at the same pace both while the ban was in place and after it was allowed to sunset.  The ban did nothing, nor was it expected to.  "Assault weapons" are only used in approx 2% of crimes.  A DOJ study of the AWB found

    we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.

    A RAND study concurs

    We found no qualifying studies showing that bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines decreased any of the eight outcomes we investigated.

    The AWB was meant to comfort people who have an irrational fear of scary-looking guns, not reduce crime.  On average, more people are beaten to death than are killed with assault rifles.
    ZeusAres42
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  
    Dee said:

    Most Americans when asked why they own a gun state for protection then spend hours telling you how safe their society is and how unnecessary a gun actually is . You know something is seriously wrong in your society when you need armed security at schools 

    You mean the same way most people don't expect there to be a fire, yet they own fire extinguishers?
    ZeusAres42AlofRI
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -   edited February 18
    @CYDdharta

    You mean the same way most people don't expect there to be a fire, yet they own fire extinguishers?

    I actually don’t own one I don’t know anyone who does as we most don’t burn coal , peat or timber as most fires are gas or oil , so that’s another of your “theories “ down the drain I’m afraid 






  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -   edited February 18
    @Starlord616

    @Starlord616

    For many reasons, here's a non-exhaustive list... 

    1. Hunting is a legitimate activity...
    2. There are a lot of remote & rural locations where wildlife is a real danger...
    3. Objectively speaking, guns are tools and do nothing by themselves...
    4. It's not realistically enforceable... 
    1. hunting is a legitimate activity which doesn't require guns let alone automatic rifles. Furthermore, hunting is rarely anything other than a hobby in the 21st century USA.
    2. I forgot that people put out fires with bullets.
    3. sure if we had guns that no one touched no one would get shot. but I hope you understand they are made to be weapons and manufactured to be lethal unlike a screwdriver (legitimate tool).
    4. not overnight but over time it could be expected. it's not like its never been completed anywhere else before.
    1. The fact that hunting can be a hobby (and even if it's only that), it does in no way whatsoever, infer invalidity... And says nothing about control vs full ban (I'm in favor of partial ban but that was not your question)...

    2. Fires??? How do you come to fire from wildlife?? It's nonsensical... Wildlife refers to animals (bears, lynx, wolves, mountain lions, deers, alligators, etc), 

    3. I would agree that guns are explicitly designed to kill... But it's still a tool nonetheless... The actual problem with guns in America is not guns, but Americans...
        There are many countries with a substantial ratio of guns per capita (granted, nowhere near the US numbers) without any indications of it being a problem... 

    4. It was meant in a Constitutional sense... Do you think it would be realistic to ever hope to see a repeal of the 2nd?? Come on... 

    That said I'm not a gun owner, I don't care for guns and though I've used both, I have no more fascination with guns than I have for screwdrivers, like most people not from America... 


    ZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    4. It was meant in a Constitutional sense... Do you think it would be realistic to ever hope to see a repeal of the 2nd?? Come on..
    Your grievance does not address the 2nd Amendment and is not gun control it is organized crime. The legal grievance can and could be made public to make an offer to buy all firearms from people who acquire firearms while not a felon in relation to simply owning a firearm.

    Should we have gun control or a gun ban?
     Self-control we should have self-control. I will sell every gun I build to the government for $20,000.00 each what is your offer to buy a gun from the public. What price are you paying for control as this is not free speech it is a vocalized grievance.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • Stop pretending there was not a basic legal obligation for a governing body to buy a firearm to retain control over that firearm. Please, it is demeaning to the idea of justice at all.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    You mean the same way most people don't expect there to be a fire, yet they own fire extinguishers?

    I actually don’t own one I don’t know anyone who does as we most don’t burn coal , peat or timber as most fires are gas or oil , so that’s another of your “theories “ down the drain I’m afraid 



    You have twice as many smokers as America, Just another instance of you closing your eyes to obvious dangers with easy fixes.  You're quite good at that.
    ZeusAres42
  • Starlord616Starlord616 330 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    1. The fact that hunting can be a hobby (and even if it's only that), it does in no way whatsoever, infer invalidity... And says nothing about control vs full ban (I'm in favor of partial ban but that was not your question)...

    2. Fires??? How do you come to fire from wildlife?? It's nonsensical... Wildlife refers to animals (bears, lynx, wolves, mountain lions, deers, alligators, etc), 

    3. I would agree that guns are explicitly designed to kill... But it's still a tool nonetheless... The actual problem with guns in America is not guns, but Americans...
        There are many countries with a substantial ratio of guns per capita (granted, nowhere near the US numbers) without any indications of it being a problem... 

    4. It was meant in a Constitutional sense... Do you think it would be realistic to ever hope to see a repeal of the 2nd?? Come on... 

    That said I'm not a gun owner, I don't care for guns and though I've used both, I have no more fascination with guns than I have for screwdrivers, like most people not from America... 


    1. my argument with hunting is that it in itself is not a viable excuse for why we should let the common public ar themselves. as an activity a weapon of so much destructive potential is not required so surely you can use it as a reason why guns should be allowed. 

    2. that's my bad I read it like wildfire, not wildlife. furthermore similar to hunting, guns are not required to protect against wildlife.

    3. the problem is Americans with guns. even if the problem is just guns then surely controlling or banning guns will solve said problem.

    4. that question was not  how realistic it was but necessary it was

    I too: I'm not a gun owner, I don't care for guns and though I've used both, I have no more fascination with guns than I have for screwdrivers, like most people not from America. I'm sorry if i ever implied you did own a gun or lived in the USA
    ZeusAres42
  • @Plaffelvohfen

    Relevance is legislation that has raised the value of the private property owned and now wishes to take that property without fair compensation. The value of justice set around improper use of lethal force as a united state falls, while the value of a firearm to be taken with no claim of compensation has been raised. The grievance is you are threatening to steal private property not pay for property that is for the general good of all people. There is no bargaining in good faith taking place....
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1287 Pts   -  
    I still think we need a response like: fallacy, irrelevant, agree, funny, that just says "WTH?"
    ZeusAres42
  • Some of the guys arguing that Gun control in the USA doesn't work are forgetting a large portion of crimes committed were done by guns that were bought illegally. So, there definitely needs to mitigation on how people who shouldn't have guns go about getting them. Excluding that gun control does work, in some countries better than others. Even if it hasn't worked well as people wanted to expect it has worked to a certain extent. However, to conclude that we should all abandon any gun control whatsoever and descend into complete anarchy is ludicrous!

    But a blanket gun ban is also ludicrous, extreme, and authoritarian. Also, if you live in many of the places in the US where violent crime is rampant you would be a total not to have a gun for protection. Hardcore violent criminals do not care about burglar alarms and nor would the police get there in time to save you. In these conditions, a powerful gun is a good deterrent, much like nuclear weapons are deterrents from invasion from other countries.

    So yes, gun control but no ban. But for control to completely work in the US, you would probably first need to eliminate all the whackjobs on the NRA and that is pretty much all of them now. Sasha Baran Cohen was able to expose and demonstrate just how ridiculous these people are in his show "Who is America." I mean that was "reductio ad absurdum" in action!
    CYDdharta



  • UnknownArtistUnknownArtist 83 Pts   -  
    Neither option would work for me, and both would go against the constitution.
    ZeusAres42
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  
    Some of the guys arguing that Gun control in the USA doesn't work are forgetting a large portion of crimes committed were done by guns that were bought illegally.


    I doubt anyone is forgetting about how criminals get crime guns.  I know I'm dismissing it for it's irrelevancy since the administration is doing nothing to address criminals or the black market.
    ZeusAres42




  • UnknownArtistUnknownArtist 83 Pts   -  
    If criminals can get guns on the black market, putting a gun ban only hurts law abiding gun owners.

    Analogy given to me by 9yo that understands better then most people;
    Sheep get killed by wolves
    sheep see that wolves use teeth to kill sheep
    sheep conclude that teeth are bad, so sheep remove their own teeth
    wolves still have teeth, and sheep now cannot defend themselves
    ZeusAres42xlJ_dolphin_473
  • CYDdharta said:
    Some of the guys arguing that Gun control in the USA doesn't work are forgetting a large portion of crimes committed were done by guns that were bought illegally.


    I doubt anyone is forgetting about how criminals get crime guns.  I know I'm dismissing it for it's irrelevancy since the administration is doing nothing to address criminals or the black market.

    So if the administration is doing nothing to address this issue then how on earth can you say control is not successful when there is no control in the first place? Your words; not mine. And how people get their guns is relevant; that's how gun control works.
    CYDdharta



  • @CYDdharta

    I doubt anyone is forgetting about how criminals get crime guns.  I know I'm dismissing it for it's irrelevancy since the administration is doing nothing to address criminals or the black market.
    Criminals do not need guns it is always a personal choice as it dictates a stiffer sentence they can simply outnumber you, beat you to death, and leave, criminals as a democracy are a very dangerous gathering that is united by gun regulations, and without regulation made on lethal force remain so.

    Talk money. How much are we paying for the gun that will be purchased, a person will never feel protected by justice unless a buyback of the firearms takes place. The prejudice is the government buys the property and makes an offer against damages that have incurred. Up to today, there has been no real offer of eminent domain buy-outs only threats of intentional legislated bankruptcy and theft.
  • If criminals can get guns on the black market, putting a gun ban only hurts law abiding gun owners.

    Analogy given to me by 9yo that understands better then most people;
    Sheep get killed by wolves
    sheep see that wolves use teeth to kill sheep
    sheep conclude that teeth are bad, so sheep remove their own teeth
    wolves still have teeth, and sheep now cannot defend themselves


    This is actually a very good argument. FYI, I am not for a blanket gun ban. But I am for gun control. Most republicans and liberals are for gun control and not a ban. It is far leftists that want a complete ban and idiots with some fascination with anarchy that think there should be no control at all. Just two extremes that reflect no more than black and white thinking.



  • anarchist100anarchist100 332 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    There should be no control, unless of course the state agrees to lay down their guns as well.
    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87 said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Relevance is legislation that has raised the value of the private property owned and now wishes to take that property without fair compensation. The value of justice set around improper use of lethal force as a united state falls, while the value of a firearm to be taken with no claim of compensation has been raised. The grievance is you are threatening to steal private property not pay for property that is for the general good of all people. There is no bargaining in good faith taking place....

    It's been demonstrably noted that the firearm debates rest on a multitude of quantum mechanics ergo visa ve.



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  

    So if the administration is doing nothing to address this issue then how on earth can you say control is not successful when there is no control in the first place? Your words; not mine. And how people get their guns is relevant; that's how gun control works.

    The administration is doing nothing to address criminals.  They're already pushing gun control initiatives, most of which have been tried and have failed already.  Gun control ≠ criminals

    And how people get guns is irrelevant, since straw purchasers are almost never prosecuted.  Don't look to Dementia Joe to change that;

    “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”

    That's how gun control doesn't work.
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    You have twice as many smokers as America, Just another instance of you closing your eyes to obvious dangers with easy fixes.  You're quite good at that.


    What obvious dangers ? Do Americans set the house on fire when they smoke or carry extinguishers every time they smoke .......wait don’t answer that as annually you shoot each other by accident 67,000 times a year 




    ZeusAres42CYDdharta
  • @ZeusAres42

    It's been demonstrably noted that the firearm debates rest on a multitude of quantum mechanics ergo visa ve.
    No, I said firearm debate, the forum describes gun control hence the taking of control of property that is not the property of the vote to whom needs the legislation or the debaters are attending to. Had this been really about freedom of speech the cost would not have been neglected as it would not exist in this matter. Grievance comes at a cost of resolution that is a basic principle it is one both sides must often pay. otherwise, it is the vocalization of the instigator and those antagonized.

     We are debating an educated understanding of public general welfare correct that is made at the more perfect union than what is now taking place?
  • CYDdharta said:

    So if the administration is doing nothing to address this issue then how on earth can you say control is not successful when there is no control in the first place? Your words; not mine. And how people get their guns is relevant; that's how gun control works.

    The administration is doing nothing to address criminals.  They're already pushing gun control initiatives, most of which have been tried and have failed already.  Gun control ≠ criminals


      You're contradicting your previous stances again. The bit in bold is a non-sequitur; it does follow at all.

    And how people get guns is irrelevant, since straw purchasers are almost never prosecuted.  Don't look to Dementia Joe to change that;

    This topic is about whether there should be gun control or a gun ban. And how people get their guns is part of gun control. What's not relevant is talking about straws, smokers, fire extinguishers, and Dementia.

    The fact is that gun control does work to a certain extent, in some countries better than others. In some countries, it may not be working as well as some people like or would have expected but it's still working nonetheless.

    However, for one to conclude that because gun control is not working 100% or they're under some kind of illusion it's not working at all that there should be no control at all is absolutely ludicrous.

    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfen







  • @ZeusAres42
    This topic is about whether there should be gun control or a gun ban.
    Is organized stealing or theft a form of control? Is it the best form of control a government can be asked to perform by a democracy?
    However, for one to conclude that because gun control is not working 100% or they're under some kind of illusion it's not working at all that there should be no control at all is absolutely ludicrous. The Removal of firearms by stealing does work 100% in the limiting of lethal force occurring by firearm. There is no doubt there by anyone. The argument in consitution is there is no bargain for good faith stating the firearm is to be paid in full for its acquisition. By lobbies hired from other nations or from groups in this nation. 

    And how people get guns is irrelevant,
    No, how a firearm comes to be created is relevant as those governments that become examples of control do buy fire-arms already.
  • Debater123Debater123 407 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen Why do you want gun control?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -  
    Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    You have twice as many smokers as America, Just another instance of you closing your eyes to obvious dangers with easy fixes.  You're quite good at that.


    What obvious dangers ? Do Americans set the house on fire when they smoke or carry extinguishers every time they smoke .......wait don’t answer that as annually you shoot each other by accident 67,000 times a year 





    Your reply makes about as much sense as your fake stats.  According to the CDC, you're about 4x too high.
    ZeusAres42
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2318 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    Because of the inherent mortal danger of guns... By analogy, just like radioactive or chemical substances... We shouldn't trust just anyone handling Plutonium or Botulinum toxins...
    I'm in favor using nuclear energy and chemicals, yet understand the need for regulations regarding their use and manipulation...

    Regulation is not ban, regulation does not prevent usage... 
    CYDdhartaZeusAres42
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen
    Do all soldiers in the Armed Service of any nation have access to Plutonium or Botulinum toxin? It doesn't sound like a common defense and is specialized, do nations buy these chemicals and toxins, or do they take the chemicals and toixins independently?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1425 Pts   -   edited February 20

      You're contradicting your previous stances again. The bit in bold is a non-sequitur; it does follow at all. 
    Not at all, you just appear to have difficulty following simple logic.  Gun control and crime control are two entirely different things.  They have very little to do with one another. 

    This topic is about whether there should be gun control or a gun ban. And how people get their guns is part of gun control. What's not relevant is talking about straws, smokers, fire extinguishers, and Dementia.

    The fact is that gun control does work to a certain extent, in some countries better than others. In some countries, it may not be working as well as some people like or would have expected but it's still working nonetheless.
    However, for one to conclude that because gun control is not working 100% or they're under some kind of illusion it's not working at all that there should be no control at all is absolutely ludicrous.

    I didn't realize I'd have to dumb down the conversation to this level, but;  a STRAW PURCHASE occurs when someone buys a firearm for someone who prohibited from owning a firearm legally.  For instance, imagine your cousin is on parole for manslaughter.  He wants a gun, but can't get approved at the local gun store, so he gives you money to buy on for him.  That's a STRAW PURCHASE.  By far, the most common avenue for criminals to obtain guns is through family or friends.  Many of these exchanges can be considered STRAW PURCHASES, so obviously they're pertinent to this discussion.  OTOH, criminals getting firearms through straw purchases is irrelevant, since Dementia Joe has already said he doesn't care about prosecuting such purchases.  If people are not prosecuted for violating gun control laws that are already on the books, and they're not, then there's no chance those laws will reduce crime.  There is also no point in passing more gun control laws that won't be enforced.  I haven't said anything at all about how well gun control works in other countries.  I've never looked into it, and I really don't care to.  What I do know is that, in the US, the murder rate has been falling fairly steadily for the last 3 decades and none of that can be attributed to gun control.
    ZeusAres42
  • Gun control and ban are a no for me. It's a constitutional right. The right to bear arms. It doesn't say the right to bear rifles or handguns or one gun it says the right to bear arms. It was made so people could protect themselves. Now you can say that guns cause the most deaths and blah blah blah but that's statistically not true. Only about 30,000 died because of guns in 2019 and 24,000 of those were self-inflicted. And honestly, it's just not realistic. There no way the government can take away every person's guns it's not possible. 
    John_C_87UnknownArtist
  • DeeDee 3442 Pts   -   edited February 20
    @CYDdharta

    Your reply makes about as much sense as your fake stats.  According to the CDC, you're about 4x too high

    You’re a raging hypocrite read above . Run along now Ostrich and bury your head back in the sand 
    CYDdhartaUnknownArtist
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch