Is "Gun Control" an effective strategy in reducing crime? - 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 website globally 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 on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Is "Gun Control" an effective strategy in reducing crime?

Debate Information

Does restricting the law-abiding citizen's access to firearms reduce gun-crime? Subsequent to 31-years in law enforcement, I say NO...when firearms are regulated-restricted-banned by the government only criminals will possess them and the law-abiding citizenry made victims by government fiat. The ONLY solution to gun-crime is assured punishment through lengthy incarceration without parole.




Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • The state of the union created by ratification of Amendments changes the willingness to participate in a judicial method of separation as this process is described as the only means of enslavement in the 21 Century.

     In basic principle there are no law-abiding citizen as we are unable to understand nor learn all the laws written in each state as they each relate to our actions. We are presumed innocent only by lack of intelligence and the complexity of many crimes and their cost to prosecute. It really is not just the idea that a person of wealth might escape prosecution it is an issue of complex more expensive crimes are avoided because of their cost to prove.

    Again, the inalienable right to hold and maintain a common connection to the balance of necessity of lethal force is the united state in which the right to bear arm is based. This is not just self-defense it is a burden of ensured liberty. A system can be overtaxed, and it is having nothing to do with the collection of money. Gun control is only attempted to stop all killing by gun and have murders be performed by some other method that is not a gun. This is the more perfect union. No-one knows how to answer the hard question how do we ensure only the right people are shot? Any true “Gun control” will be addressing that point. Lethal force is addressed as murders and not gun control.

  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; I do wish you would communicate with clarity, simplicity of thought....
  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    Gun control can reduce crime rates but only up to a point.    Put simply, societies with strong social cohesion, low proportions of demographic groups known for their low intelligence and proneness for criminal behaviour,  and a belief in good family values, have very low rates of violent crime.    Societies with low social cohesion with large proportions of crime and welfare prone minorities and increasingly "multicultural" values definitely need very strict gun control.    Gun control laws are a litmus paper test of how sick your society is becoming.   Healthy societies do not need strict gun control and sick societies do.

    Early 20th century London is a case in point.    London was once considered the safest city in the world where much to the amazement of police forces around the world, the police did not need to carry sidearms. .   Strict firearm laws do not account for that, because prior to WW1 Britain did not have any.    Any person could openly carry a handgun provided that they paid a tax at the post office.   Some wealthy people even owned Vickers machine guns.  Neither could "poverty" or "Inequality" be blamed.   Early 20th century London was still a very poor city by today's standards and a huge inequality of wealth existed between the aristocrat, upper middle, and the working and dysfunctional lowest class.    I hate to give the commie bastards any credit but communism did do one positive thing.    It scared the European upper and middle classes into giving the lower classes, a better deal.

    I do not believe in "Human Rights" at all except two.     The absolute right of a free people to decide in their own parliaments what the best course of action is best for their countries.     And, that means in addition the absolute right to free speech.    The people within democratic countries must be free to discuss any political topic and demand through majority vote what laws should be enacted by their representatives to ensure their own welfare.   I do not believe in a "right" to bear arms.    If the founding fathers had ever laid their eyes on an M-16 rifle and seen what it could do in seconds to a school room full of 9 year olds, I think that they may have thought twice about granting "The Right To Bear Arms." to any with double digit IQ.  

    I support gun control up to a point.   Here in my own state of NSW Australia, our state has increased the severity of our gun laws 5 times in forty years with the result that violet crime keeps rising.    Sydney in particular has had 13 people shot dead in the streets in just the last few months.    That may not be a big deal in Chicago or Detroit but it is a very big deal in Australia.     The biggest factor in these shootings is not the handguns themselves which are all illegal weapons smuggled into Australia, but the ethnicity of the victims and perpetrators.    Lebanese people have been imported into Australia as refugees after the Lebanese civil war and they immediately created an unpreceded crime wave which even the lying liberal fake news press which loves multiculturalism could not hide.   

    The rise in violent crime in western societies was created by two things.      First the importation of very violent minorities from countries with very violent cultures.    The second was, the liberalisation of the censorship laws pertaining to the entertainment industry.     In most western countries the censorship of the entertainment industries was used as an effective means of social control by banning the entertainment industries from doing anything utterly by glamourising violent criminal behaviour, as the idiots do today.   Don't get me wrong, I had no problem with liberalizing censorship laws, which in Australia were ridiculously strict.   Even books like 'All Quiet On The western Front" , "A Farewell To arms", "Catcher In the Rye", God's Little Acre", "Ulysses", and "Brave New World" were banned.   But the pendulum swings and always swings too far.    Now we have pop songs where 'artists" like Eminem sing songs about the pleasures of raping their mothers and beating up their wives.   In the 50's parents wailed that if some control were not put on the pop music industry which their teenage children idolized, US society would end up having no decent values at all.    They were right.

    There is a very strong connection between violent crime and ethnicity but liberal left wingers will never, ever, admit it.       It goes against their near religious belief that all races and ethnicities are equal. 

    My solution to rising rates of violent crime is   1.  Stop importing people from violent cultures (shithole countries as Trump would say) into relatively peaceful western countries.   2.   Initiate some sort of censorship on the entertainment industries and force them to stop making movies about kids shooting kids in schools, glorifying gang violence, glorifying personnel revenge, and glorifying violent criminal behaviour.    3.   Sensible gun laws where at least people must be licensed to own their firearms.    Simply blaming guns for everything without looking at the two primary causes of violent crime will not achieve anything.  



     



    RickeyDSkepticalOne
  • @RickeyD
     I do wish you would communicate with clarity, simplicity of thought....
    Clarity and simplicity are not words which may form a perfect union truth and simplicity, fact and clarity are words to associated to a more perfect state of the union. Clarity and simplicity are for unions made on interpretation not it would be more direct to simply say clarity and interpretation or simplicity and interpretation. Which is like saying let is just as the more perfect union.

    Due to a United State created by targeted legislation, poorly regulated democracy, and law there is no such position as a law-abiding American citizen. The crimes we may be guilty of are often just too hiden for us to understand or costly for a criminal charge to be filed against the higher volume crimes everyone perfomrs ignorant to a more perfect union of simplistic lie to create a criminal to be prosecuted.




  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Sounds wonderful. Thanks.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 973 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    "an M-16 rifle and seen what it could do in seconds to a school room full of 9 year olds, I think that they may have thought twice about granting "The Right To Bear Arms." to any with double digit IQ"

    I disagree. The founding fathers were OK with people owning cannons.  They knew the right to bear arms was essential to keep the freedoms you previously stated.
    SkepticalOneZeusAres42dallased25
  • exconexcon 490 Pts   -  
    RickeyD said:

    Is "Gun Control" an effective strategy in reducing crime?

    Hello R:

    It depends on what particular measures are included in "gun control"..  Personally, I don't think chipping away at the law is the way to go..

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As an originalist, I'd propose a law that did just that.  Pursuant to the amendment itself, its purpose is to keep well regulated militias. That would be the National Guard - NOT individual citizens.

    excon




    CYDdharta
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 973 Pts   -  
    @excon

    No the purpose is not to keep well regulated militias.  

    What it is saying is the founding fathers knew a well regulated militia is needed for the security of the free state.
    They also knew this militia could be used in the wrong way by the state, hence the one they just left.
    Therefore because a regulated militia is necessary, the right of the people to bear arms in potential opposition to an authoritarian state shall not be infringed.
  • exconexcon 490 Pts   -   edited June 1

    No the purpose is not to keep well regulated militias. 
    Hello M:

    I disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. 

    excon

    SkepticalOne
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 973 Pts   -  
    @excon

    That's fine but that is what history shows and how it is written.

    The fact you offered no counter to why my interpretation is wrong is pretty telling. 

    1. If they were referring to the militia only they would have just restated militia.
    2. Under what law do you think citizens are allowed to own weapons?
    3. Why would they need to provide a right for a military to own weapons?

    The right of the People (citizens of the u.s) shall not be infringed.
  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    You might be right.    But I have an aversion to absolutes.    What moral values make perfect sense 250 years ago may not make sense today.       If any more little kids get slaughtered in school room massacres by drop kicks wielding M-16's the US public might just think that changing the US constitution is overdue when it comes to gun control.     My opinion is, that you had better start coming up with a valid reason why you think that guns are not the problem if you want to win that one.  I have already suggested the real reasons, but nobody on this topic wants to go there.

    I really can not speak for all Australian gun owners, but I do know for a fact that the Australian governments "buyback" of self loading rifles was not taken seriously by most shooters.   Despite overwhelming  support from the non gun owning Australian public for very stringent gun control following the Port Arthur massacre, most Australian shooters chose to break the law and hide their guns.    The Australian government did not have a clue how many self loading rifles were out there because for most of Australian history, nobody bothered to keep records.    But the Australian government bean counters made some guestimates and they claimed that between 2.75  and 3.5 million firearms needed to be handed in.    The total number handed during the buyback?   860,0000.    

    There are a lot of illegal guns in Australia.    Why would one of the most law abiding demographic choose to disobey the law?    Because many Australians think exactly like you do.  They do not trust their increasingly totalitarian leaning state and federal governments.    Australia is no longer a free country.   If you say anything bad about certain welfare, crime, and terrorism  prone ethnicities, you can get hauled up in front of a public service star chamber and fined. Believe it or not, these organisations are also supposed to be the guardians of free speech.   In addition, Australia and New Zealand ran out if rifles during WW2 and soldiers were trained with wooden rifles.  During WW2 Australia was not able to defend itself and the armed forces proposed that most of the country should not be defended at all, except behind The Brisbane Line where most of Australia's population and industry resided.    Sucko if you were not living behind the Brisbane Line.      You had to defend yourself, Minuteman style.    So a lot of opposition to handing military rifles in to be destroyed comes from regions in front of the Brisbane Line.    Some blokes have long memories.   In addition, Australia's defense position for the last 70 years has been to fight to the last American.  Australia now has a population of 25million and appears to have only 80,000 Steyr rifles to arm it's population is we ever had to go to war.   Our Air Force is the size of one US Aircraft carrier's aircraft wings.  

    Anyhoo, almost all of these self loading rifles are in the hands of decent, law abiding white people, mostly rural types.    And it is amazing that so few of these weapons have been used for criminal purposes.   It was probably a good thing that the buyback occurred before large scale immigration of Lebanese, Pacific Islander, and Africans started to happen.    Because if these ethnicities had gotten their hands on self loading rifles before the gun buyback, the problem of drive by killings would be ten times worse in Australia than it is today.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    Yeah, well Rick, the little poster you posted up makes some sense.    But it is not going to stop the American people from having a referenda to change the US Constitution and bring in some sensible gun control to prevent low IQ m-o-r-o-n-s from walking into classrooms and shooting dozens of little kids to death.     More than half of the US population are females and females as whole do not like guns, but they do love kids.      

    What makes US society so much more violent than comparable western societies is three things?

    1.   Your entertainment industries manufacture media which promotes violent criminal behaviour, and while most people with average intelligence see such movies as entertaining because they turn the usual moral beliefs which underpin a normal, caring society, they become scripts for how a brainless, low status young male can achieve self respect.

    2.   The existence of at least two significant ethnicities in US society who have a population of young men with below average IQ and a probable genetic propensity to violent behaviour.    Other western  countries are using immigration to catch up to the USA on this point. 

    3.   The easy availability of firearms to a degree that any criminal or mentally disturbed person who wants one can get one.

    My own opinion is, that peaceful societies do not need strict gun laws and violent societies do.    Simply focusing upon firearms to solve all of a violent societies problems will not succeed because they are ignoring the other two factors.     My own country of Australia is a case in point.    My home state of NSW has made our gun laws more severe five times in the last forty years because of ever rising rates of violent crime and it just keeps getting worse.

    If you keep banging on about "The Right To Bear Arms" you are going to lose.
  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
    @Bogan ; No amount of "gun laws" will stop the demonically insane from committing atrocities...never has and never will...America is a Nation that has forsaken Her God...our sustainability is wholly dependent upon our relationship with our Creator...without Him, America will implode...and no amount of laws or restrictions or violations of the Constitution to pacify pathetic liberals and guilty white progressives will change our fate. It is because of the godless, like yourself, that America is dying in apostasy, liberal filth, abortion, LGBTQ mental illness...not laws.


  • @Bogan
     What moral values make perfect sense 250 years ago may not make sense today. 

    It has nothing to do with moral value it is a united state of law held between owning a fire-arm and lethal force, some people cannot forces others to kill on their behalf, the united state ensures they too must hold and share the burdens of lethal force equally. The failure in mass shotting is the burdens of lethal force are a choice and not law when not held there is no longer equality shared and thus a target of blame is created by lack of representation. The gun is to blame, and we do not fear the choice we do not see made yet.


  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Moral values are immutable...only the soul of mankind seeking to justify their sin "changes." Guns don't commit mass murder, people who are demonically led, commit mass murder.


  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  

    Well, I disagree, RickeyD.

     I am not a Christian, but I think that in the whole, Christian values are very good and I try to live up to the ones I agree with.   I think that the reason why Protestant Christian countries are usually very peaceful societies and have low levels of corruption, is because they were founded upon Christian principles, especially the pacifism of the Jewish bloke that you call "Jesus Christ."   That is to say, that most Protestant Christians are not pacifists, but the underlying messages of the Jewish guy who advocated for pacifism greatly influences western thinking.

     You are correct in saying that western pacific culture is changing to a more violent culture because as people are no longer controlled by religious thinking, or thoughts of going to hell if they are naughty.  But I will go out on a limb here and say that today, most people simply do not believe in supernatural forces.   If we believed in your God's law we would still be mass murdering "witches".     People think beyond that.   Even such virtues as kindness to animals is not part of Christian ideology.    People are capable of figuring out what should be right and what should be wrong, although we may differ very much in what those values should be.   No law can be set in stone because different times call for different approaches to survival.

     US gun laws are a case in point.   I recognise that strict gun laws are not necessary in a peaceful society with good moral values.     Unfortunately, two things are destroying US society.    The ever increasing numbers of dysfunctional minorities and a culture of violence, especially revenge type behaviour, being grafted onto US culture by greedy entertainment moguls.    These moguls know exactly what they are doing,even if you don't.    Combined with the ridiculously easy availability of firearms and you have an explosive, a wick, and a match.    I have watched US crime shows on TV and I am constantly amazed of scenes where violent criminals, ones who are banned from even owning any kind of firearm, have their houses or cars searched by the police, revealing a veritable arsenal of the most dangerous weapons.     Gun availability in the USA is too high.    

  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    @Bogan ; You are correct in saying that western pacific culture is changing to a more violent culture because as people are no longer controlled by religious thinking, or thoughts of going to hell if they are naughty. 

    Well if you really look at it you will see that America has much more religion than nother western countries and we are going down hill with more violence and drugs and shooting. I reckon if we got rid of religion then people wouldnt be hating every one so much and attacking gays and people getting abortions and moms who get knocked up and have babies because the only morals that chistian people have are morals which were around thousands of years ago when evry one acted like total dufises and you wouldnt want to live then. And the dum idea that we should have guns to protect ourselves is real dum because if we restrict guns like other countries then we might be like other countries that dont splatter their brains out all over the place all the time. I wonder what would happen if we just tried banning guns what would happen I mean just try it and if it doent work then let every one have all the ak47s they want and then blame it on mental health. But all the bogins and red necks cant stand not having there security blankets because they didnt get there moms milk and they just make up el lamo excuses like we need to protect our selves and its in the constitution and its mental health because they just love their killing machines because thats there mentaility which isnt much any way.

  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    Don't bother addressing any posts to me, Mr Barnadot.   Not after you defamed me by submitting a quote you claimed was from me, when it was not.   You are on my Troll list now.  
  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    Well you can make all the dum threats you can think of but your only fouling your self because even blind Fred can see that you can’t even argue your way out of a paper bag that’s been popped so that’s why you make up all that bully baloney. @Bogan
  • @RickeyD
    Moral values are immutable...only the soul of mankind seeking to justify their sin "changes." Guns don't commit mass murder, people who are demonically led, commit mass murder.  There was never an idea of two sides of the gun argument the have's and the have not's, there was only how to hold a burden of lethal force throughout society equally in the more perfect state of the union. 

    " When we are told to hold a gun does commit mass murder in order to keep that self-evident truth as fact, we must agree never to allow any person a right to preserve their own life." We are then as guilty as the shooter in the death of those who are shot. The 2nd Amendment describes a gun as an extension of the arm so if a group of people really wish to choose to hold the gun accountable, they can call it the perfect union but it is not a freedom of speech or press and there is a cost as risk assigned in doing so. The cost is bigger lawsuits for mistakes of others and the argument of response times, this is to hide the greatest negligence of all a failure to hold the burden of lethal force equally in our society, I would like to call this " the Godfather syndrome." People are more willing to pay to give the order to kill a person than to hold the risk of having to kill another themselves. Politics and a practice of law allows them this opportunity.


  • @RickeyD
    Is "Gun Control" an effective strategy in reducing crime?

    In whole truth in whole truth it is an effective way to reduce the statistics in public use of lethal force there is no clinical evidence to support it reduces crime and may increase crime. The crimes that are increased are simple less likely to produce a criminal conviction as they become harder to prove. 


  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ; Weapons don't kill...people kill...outlawing weapons only results in a powerless and defenseless populous while only outlaws will have weapons. The most tragic death of children involve a mother and an abortionist...if you were serious about saving lives and the value of human life, you would not represent the demonic in these pages frothing over the mutilation of babies in the womb; therefore, you're a hypocrite. Let's see your concern for the thousands of Black deaths in abortion clinics and in gang shootings in Baltimore, Chicago, LA...then we can talk.


  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    All that your last posted meme showed, Ricky, is that it is so easy to get guns in the USA that even diagnosed as being mentally disturbed and on medication can get one.

    All of the decent countries on planet earth agree that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and immoral.    All of the decent countries of the world agree that the USA's gun ownership laws are ridiculously lenient.   But like Putin, you refuse to see what every other decent person in the world can see.    


    Plaffelvohfen
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1799 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    If people who have been diagnosed as being mentally disturbed can get guns, then that's a failure of our mental health laws, not our gun laws.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta ;that's a failure of our mental health laws, not our gun laws.

    Like der if the gun laws were changed then lunies and red necks wouldn’t be allowed to buy guns any way.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1799 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    We expect children to be ignorant, but you abuse the privilege little one.  "Lunies" are already barred from legally obtaining firearms.The problem is that the laws that are on the books, aren't being enforced.  It won't do any good to make new laws that also won't be enforced.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta ; "Lunies" are already barred from legally obtaining firearms.The problem is that the laws that are on the books, aren't being enforced. 

    The problem is though that theres are more guns than people and I know theres such a big market selling guns illegally so all a lunie needs to do is by a gun from his dealer no problem and the dealer will just say like sure like how many do you want and do you want assalt or automatic coz I got heaps of them coz I just get em from the corner store and rich fokes homes easy coz theres so many of dem and Ill give you a free lid of crack so you can get off on it and go shoot up your elementry school . And then the red necks will get there guns from the black hoods by bashing them up because they dont like the blacks any way so then where does it all end it ends when you get rid of the guns thats when.

  • RickeyDRickeyD 901 Pts   -   edited June 6
    @Barnardot ; You will never eliminate the production of firearms...our society has achieved technological advances that will make firearms readily accessible to those who want them...whether or not they're serialized or home-built or secreted across our southern border...if anyone wants a firearm they will attain one. The 2nd-Amendment is absolute...most Patriots will fight to the death to defend their right to bear arms as this is a non-negotiable as ample evidence exists demonstrating the ramifications of surrendering our equalizers to a tyrannical government. The only reason a government seeks to disarm its public is because that government is promulgating an agenda they know you will shoot for its implementation. I hope every American Patriot fights to the death to defend the 2nd-Amendment and resists America becoming a Canada, Australia, China, N. Korea, UK. God Bless America and those who love Her as She was created not what She has become under the demonism of Marxism-LGBTQ WOKENESS-Progressivism.

     
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4589 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot

    What does the number of firearms matter? There could be 100 times as many firearms as there are people, or there could be 0.00001 times as many. What matters crime-wise is how easy it is for a criminal to obtain a firearm in practice, as well as how many violent criminals there are in the first place, and the number of firearms has no direct impact on this.

    There are heavily armed countries in which gun violence is nearly non-existent; Switzerland comes to mind. There are also countries with few privately owned guns and with very tight gun controls where gun violence is prevalent; Russia is a good example. There are cultural reasons for these differences, as well as the enforcement specifics (in Russia a gun is very easy to obtain as long as you are willing to give someone a bribe; in Switzerland getting a gun illegally is very difficult).

    None of these factors seem to be accounted for in these discussions. People just imply zero-order thinking: "If there are fewer guns and if the gun ownership is more harshly controlled, then the gun violence will decrease". It is the same primitive kind of thinking as this: "If production of food is controlled by the government, then there is exactly as much food produced as needed". Needless to say, the latter has never worked in practice, because the world is not a computer simulation box where you can plug in some parameters and get precisely the outcome you desire. The world is a complicated beast with countless interdependencies, and trying to tweak one factor necessarily leads to a chain of unforeseen consequences - many of which can be foreseen if one does not limit themselves to the zero-order thinking, in essence looking only at the most obvious immediate consequence and ignoring everything else.
    You want to reduce the availability of guns through regulations? Have you thought through the million of other effects such regulations would have? Or the problems of enforcement of these regulations? Or the corruption of the officials involved in their development? Why not discuss these? You are concerned with the immediate problem and are experiencing a tunnel vision, where every possible action is viewed only in the context of its immediate impact on this problem. This kind of thinking being prevalent today is the chief reason of endless blunders, as politicians try to fix problems of their own creation by the same methods as they used to create those problems, only exacerbating them over time.
  • @Bogan
    All of the decent countries on planet earth agree that Putin's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and immoral. 

    Are they the decent countries on the planet?

    The invasion of Ukraine cannot really be happening we had been told in the U.S. those type things simple do not happen anymore in the world and America has no need for the ownership of firearms to hold a united state of law with its armed services. During the invasion which is impossible the nimber of ruthless killings increases in America on soft tragets plus we are threatened by a head of state of the foreign power who is actively at War and is invading a County.

    I somehow feel the idea of wait till Russia runs out of guns and bullets is working for Europe...


  • @RickeyD
    You will never eliminate the production of firearms...our society has achieved technological advances that will make firearms readily accessible 

    Guns are already replaceable by any number of type drones what are you talking about.


  • @RickeyD

     The 2nd-Amendment is absolute...
    The united states of law to be held by a self-evident truth binding firearms and citizens in American by an Article of Constitution has little to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is a choice in a series of other choices to be made when looking for a perfect state of the union of justice, tranquility, general welfare and a secure posterity. The 2nd Amendment simple states the basic principle if arms brought to bear makes it impossible to remove a person’s ability to adapt, improvise, and overcome.


  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  

    MayCaesar wrote

     There are heavily armed countries in which gun violence is nearly non-existent; Switzerland comes to mind. There are also countries with few privately owned guns and with very tight gun controls where gun violence is prevalent; Russia is a good example. There are cultural reasons for these differences, as well as the enforcement specifics (in Russia a gun is very easy to obtain as long as you are willing to give someone a bribe; in Switzerland getting a gun illegally is very difficult).

     Good.   Excellent, MayCaesar.    I agree with you completely.   I AGREE WITH YOU.     CULTURE is far more important than the mere presence of firearms.     The clear and undeniable fact is, that countries that have peaceful and non violent cultures can have very low rates of violent crime, even with lenient gun laws, while countries which have very violent cultures NEED strict gun laws.     The USA always had a more violent culture than Britain, even when both countries had near non existent firearm laws at the beginning of the 20th Century.   It was hardly surprising that the USA therefore had a much higher homicide rate despite the death penalty for murder in both countries.

     The USA's entertainment industries censorship standards were once much more lenient than Britain's or Australia.   It's entertainment industries always had a fascination with criminals, but at least they tried to present criminals as "different" to other people.     Hollywood once showed gangsters as wearing white ties and black shirts to display that difference.    But all it did was to create a fashion among real criminals who started wearing white ties and black shirts to emulate their on screen heroes.   The media can affect people's behaviour.   They emulate their on screen role model heroes.  

     But the entertainment industries, movies, pop songs, and computer games, now actively promote the idea that being a violent criminal, even a mass murderer, can win you public respect, and even the attentions of beautiful women.     That is a really idea to put into the minds of misfits and young men with low IQ and a selfish, self centered view on life.     Add the extremely easy availability of firearms and you have got a bomb and a match together.

     MayCaesar wrote

     None of these factors seem to be accounted for in these discussions.

     Wrong.  Wrong.  Wrong.    I have been trying to put this view on this and other topics.    Perhaps you missed them?    

    MayCaesar wrote

     People just imply zero-order thinking:

     Right.  Right.  Right.      I am opposed to ever increasing firearm laws in Australia because they demonstrably don't work.    It is zero order thinking.     These laws do not work because they are not addressing the primary or even tertiary causes for our ever increasing rates of violent crime.    So, I am trying to get through to my US gun owning friends, that they have to make a choice.    The first is, to realise that just banging on about the Second Amendment will ultimately fail.    Constitutions can be changed by referenda.    And if the rate of gun crime, especially school massacres continues to increase, calls for a referenda on the Second Amendment will be demanded by one half of the US population which are females.    The second is, to go on the attack.   Start realising that your entertainment industries are the primary problem, and start shooting back.  

     The reason why the USA is suffering a crisis is...   (in order of importance)

     1.   An entertainment industry which is changing US culture to one which admires violent criminals and mass murderers.    It teaches young people that illegal drugs are cool.   It teaches those young men who are societies misfits that all they need to gain public admiration is to show how violent and criminal they can be.    And it teaches them that if you have a grievance, that Real Men always get revenge.

     2.    Ridiculously lenient firearm laws where even crazy people on medication, or the most dangerous criminals, can very easily obtain the most murderous, mass killing weapons.

     3.   A growing number of young misfit males with a low IQ, with a grievance against society.

     You Americans can deny that all of these factors are working in concert to create school shootings, but things are going to get worse and worse until you do.    Sooner or later you are going to have to face reality.

     At the moment, the Left and their friends in the entertainment industries have got gun owners where they want them, entirely on the defensive.       They know that gun owners banging on about the Fourth Amendment will see them lose.     They are scapegoating guns and denying their own culpabilities and you Second Amendment advocates are letting them get away with it.   Media people know the power they have to do damn near anything they like.    They have put the seed in your head that censoring the entertainment industries is not what "intelligent" people would ask for, and you can not think past that mental boundary.

          MayCaesar wrote

      "If there are fewer guns and if the gun ownership is more harshly controlled, then the gun violence will decrease". It is the same primitive kind of thinking....."

     Right.  Right.  Right, again.

     Just making gun laws ever more strict has not worked in Australia because it is only addressing one factor for the reasons for the increase in violent crime.     Australia still imports entertainment media glorifying violent criminal behaviour and drug abuse, and it still imports ever more crime prone ethnicities from very violent cultures.     In the last few months in Sydney, 13 people have been shot down in the streets in drive by shootings.    That may be no big deal in Chicago, but it is a very big deal in peaceful Australia.    Almost all of the perps and victims were Lebanese or Arabs who were involved in Australia's drug trade.    A trade I might add, actively promoted by the entertainment industries.      The criminal misuse of drugs by on screen heroes (Trainspotting, Pulp Fiction, Clueless, Studio 54, Days of Disco)  is now so prevalent that the media has become the advertising arm of the drug industry.

     MayCaesar

     The world is a complicated beast with countless interdependencies, and trying to tweak one factor necessarily leads to a chain of unforeseen consequences - many of which can be foreseen if one does not limit themselves to the zero-order thinking, in essence looking only at the most obvious immediate consequence and ignoring everything else.

     Right.   Right.  Right again.    Addressing only one factor and ignoring the others will achieve nothing.

  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Yeah?    Well, I would love to take you up on that, but like Bernadot, you are on my Troll list, because of your previous behaviour towards me.    If all you want to do is to stifle debate rather than debate in good faith, then go and play your childish games somewhere else.     This site is for adults.
  • @Bogan

    "an M-16 rifle and seen what it could do in seconds to a school room full of 9 year olds, I think that they may have thought twice about granting "The Right To Bear Arms." to any with double digit IQ"

    I disagree. The founding fathers were OK with people owning cannons.  They knew the right to bear arms was essential to keep the freedoms you previously stated.

    Likewise, in the UK a few hundred years back the Rulers of the land were ok with drowning supposed witches or burning them at the stake if they didn't drown. Cool story bruh. ;)



  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 973 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I was directly addressing an argument to what the founding fathers allowed.  I made no statement on what level of arms should or shouldn't be allowed. 
    ZeusAres42
  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;What does the number of firearms matter?

    I’m der like I reckon and this is just reckon that if you have a heap of weapons all over the place then dufises are going to get them easy and if you have like next to know weapons then the dufises are going to get next to know chance of getting them and then splattering the gray matter of kids all over the classroom. Like this is just a guess mind you so what do you reckon about that.

  • @MichaelElpers
    I was directly addressing an argument to what the founding fathers allowed.  I made no statement on what level of arms should or shouldn't be allowed.  

     The fact is the right to ensure tranquility was expected to be exercised allowing a person a common defense towards our general welfare physically and intellectually by united state of law. The 2nd Amendment is nothing more than excuse to avoid truth, children in the classroom had and are under attach they had been inadequately left undefended. End of B.S. Whatever the cause of the means of the attack, whatever the instrument of the attack, the reason for the attack is lack of common defense towards the children’s welfare. Period

    Was this lack of common defense intentional or criminal negligence to invite increased attacks on schools to motivate legislator and legislation to take a direction of Unamerican constitutional writing of law?

    How far across any open space does someone need to walk with an assault rifle at a school to be seen as a clear threat to human life? The self-evident truth is all the way to the school is too far.

    If these attacks are not motivated to influence Unconstitutional writing of law, what are we going to do when the weapons of the attacks brought to bear are far is less obvious an assault rifle and much more destructive?

    This sounds like a bunch of students who did not prepare just failed miserably on a surprise test and are now arguing points to bring their grades up for those results.


  • BoganBogan 79 Pts   -  
  • @Bogan

    Excuse not to guard that which was most precious... 


  • mrreasonmrreason 17 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: needs to be some regulation

    I believe there needs to be some regulation. Do people really need assault rifles?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1799 Pts   -  
    @mrreason

    Do people really need sports cars or crotch rockets?  Assault rifles don't pose a serious problem.
  • @mrreason

    Ask Ukraine?


  • @CYDdharta
    Do people really need sports cars or crotch rockets?  Assault rifles don't pose a serious problem.

    Yes, in truth they do pose a serious problem and the process of establishing an idea of what is understood to be a preservation of constitutional right can be set to establish and hold a level of liberty in the ownership and use of guns of certain qualities. However, the word assault in general is not even part of the state of a constitutional union in this regard.


  • BarnardotBarnardot 157 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87 ;However, the word assault in general is not even part of the state of a constitutional union in this regard.

    That is so so right because you have to realize that that guy thinks that guns are inanimate objects and why does he want to have an asalt rifle any way because you don’t just defend your self with one of them what you do is full some one full of led and full every body else near by with led but red neck boy won’t admit that he just wants to drive a round in his great big truck that’s mat black and has lights along the top and shoot dear like sure he’s going to just happen to run in to a heard of them then he can shoot them all with his ak47 then donate all the meet to all the starving people in India why put curry in it so it doesn’t go off. Yeah sure that’s why red neck boy has the asalt rifle.

  • @Barnardot

    Still just an excuse to not guard shooting precious...that had been laced in the line of fire.

    The key word here is the children had been placed in a line of fire and it is something that has taken place in the past few decades. The constitutional connection was described as a common defense toward a general welfare, yes weapons of the assault nature are included as a state of the union in principles of Established Justice. Keep in mind that from the very beginning of attacks established justice had been already a legal precedent with the use of armed guards. 


  • Still just an excuse to not guard something precious, something that had been placed in the line of fire.

    Sorry...
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