The debate "Banning guns is a helpless step in reducing gun violence" was started by
August 3, 2015, 9:29 pm.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
AstroSpace posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 6 arguments, MUNNER posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
AstroSpace, graples, historybuff, sabrina, musejay1, bhebe27, DerpedLocke, dgw23, Jlav0820, benrpollak, nicalow, theQueenofdebate, wayneSPEC, Tristanzee, MUNNER, mohanraj, toughgamerjerry, invincible_01, jbailee, nwenn24, steady_current and 22 visitors agree.
PsychDave, sloanstar1000, wmd, ELIJAHJ, ari_pooya, ibrahim, gouthamabi, Yuki_Amayane, jmardis82, wkahhoong, Musstta, countrybumpkin, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx and 12 visitors disagree.
it is really a helpless step because it is really not possible to reduce the violence even if it is banned. do u think that just bcoz it is banned ppl will not get guns through illegal ways? in this world there are lot of things which are banned but ppl still engages into it. drugs etc.. so even if it is banned it is certainly an useless step to reduce violence.
At what point did I advocate martial law? Logical arguments may be out of your reach but could you at least respond to things we have said?
and you continue your streak of making no arguments at all and just resorting to personal attacks. you are completely missing the point if a debating app.
Oh, so Psychdave supports martial law and police state. Lmfao you and historybuff are brainwashed beyond belief.
Did you miss my point about reduced guns raising the black market price of guns? Did you miss the argument that reducing magazine capacity lowers the number of potential victims in a shooting? Did you miss the fact that nations with fewer guns have lower violent crime rates and less shootings?
Ignoring points doesn't make them disappear, not does using liberal as am insult towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Guns will always exist, and at no point have I expressed a desire to take your guns. I have expressed a desire to see them controlled in such a way that, should someone walk into a mall with a rifle, police wouldn't have to wait for the first body to hit the floor to respond. Arming everyone in no way protects kids from being shot and if you think it does you are deluding yourself and ignoring statistics and logic.
Being outnumbered in no way changes the fact that we have raised multiple logical arguments, which you have ignored with your refrain of "I love guns and you can't stop me".
We make point after point about how restricting guns would improve things. you ignore them and claim we didn't make them. that is a pretty good sign of stupidity. I assume you sit there with your fingers in your ears pretending not to hear other opinions. it makes me wonder why you are on a debating app when you don't debate. you just repeat your opinion over and over and don't listen to anyone.
Lol historybuff you guys are completely outnumbered in this debate. I love guns and will continue to love them just as the rest if America does. Funny how you can't take my guns no matter how much they scare you.
You call me massively stupid when you're the one that wants to ban guns and thinks that will make it unicorns and butterflies. Go back to liberal lolly land better yet Canada.
Give up Dave. he completely ignores our arguments. he is either trolling or is just massively stupid.
lol, you said that guns will always be available on the black market. EXACTLY. So you want to disarm everyone so when a shooter walks into a school and starts shooting little kids, no one can defend themselves. Brilliant Dave. Brilliant.
Ok Dave, just because you disagree with me on this simple issue, doesn't mean you can tell need I can't understand basic arguments and valid points. I haven't seen any arguments besides a clip and a magazine are "the same." I'm waiting for a actual arguement.
First, I brought up pinning magazines to a maximum of 5 rounds, and I used the correct term. Before you continue to make yourself look foolish splitting hairs about irrelevant terminology, perhaps you should reread the posts and refresh your memory. Relying on semantics rather than responding to the arguments themselves makes it appear that you have no strong arguments to counter with.
Second, while guns will always be available on the black market, restrictions would drive up the price, thus further limiting the number of guns. With fewer guns around, fewer could be stolen or lost, import and transportation becomes riskier, and police would be able to seize those they find.
Finally, why would you start a debate, then feign disdain for everyone who has valid points counter to your views? You seem to either not have thought through what would happen if you started this debate over or are unable to respond to the arguments counter to your opinion and are trying to disengage without appearing to lose.
You should first understand that clip is completely different from a magazine. No matter how much you say that it's a common misconception, you're still wrong. If you want to ban guns, at least understand some of the basics. I never insulted you, I said it makes you look uneducated when you mix up words like that. You also said that if we banned guns that the black market wouldn't be able to get them...How do you think they get them in the first place? ILLEGALLY. That argument is nowhere near valid. You seem to think that guns are the only object that can be used for killing...You can literally look up on the internet, how to build a pipe bomb, and hundreds of results come up. Pipe bombs can kill or injure around 30 people without warning. What will we do? Ban pipes and nails?
look up the word magazine, clip is a common expression. Please stop insulting people for no reason. and a black market would have a lot less guns if they couldn't get guns legally. Again in Canada there is way less gun crime than in the States because there's way less access to guns.
And if guns are banned, then you just buy them off the black market. Or build a bomb and kill just as many people, if not, more. Maybe we should ban metal pipes and nails. Don't want anyone to build bomb!
"A clip is a word used to mean magazine." No, a clip us different than magazines. You look moronic when you call magazines clips.
And the definition for an assault rifle is it has at least 2 fire modes. But on my end it doesn't really matter about terminology. if there is any chance you think it's an assault rifle it should probably be banned.
No Chicago homicides stayed almost exactly the same as the year before. please check your stats before posting. Also changing the laws in one city doesn't help. A criminal can drive 15 minutes in any direction and get a gun legally. They need to be controlled nationally if you want to make a dent in guns. Also a clip is a word that is used to mean magazine. it is technically incorrect but it is widely used and you know what we meant. Don't split hairs.
There is no evidence at all that gun control helps reduce violence, and the cdc agrees. Gun violence has declined 49% since 1993. You're logic is: If we take all if the guns from law abiding citizens, and completely disarm them, then the criminals will stop and turn in their guns as well. How ignorant does that sound? America is very pro gun anyways, so you gun grabbers aren't even a threat to america. There's no point in arguing. Gun control never has, and never will be effective. Ever.
You mean the massacre in China where none of the children died?
The more powerful the weapon, the more damage you're able to cause, no restrictions on guns is obviously not a solution to curbing the level of violence in society.
You stated that banning guns will eventually reduce the crime rates. Take Chicago for example, in 2011, guns we're unconstitutionally nearly immposible to get, yet it's crimes skyrocketed, it the highest crime and homicide rates out of any ither cities. It was also said that we should limit "clips" to 5 rounds. A clip feeds the magazine, which feeds the gun. Completely different from a magazine. Someone tell me, what is an "assault rifle?" A rifle that is fully automatic and kills people? No. An "assault rifle" is actually just a semi automatic carbine. Know correct terminology before trying to ban everything. You know, guns aren't the only way to kill somebody. In fact, I could make a fully automatic weapon at my house. How about build a bomb? The choices are endless. A man in China massacred nearly 30 kids with a butcher knife. Maybe you want to ban knives too?
are we still defending the idea that we should allow people to mount 50 cal. machine guns on the back of their trucks?
we've been through this...
The reason for the restrictions is to reduce effectiveness of the weapons criminals will have access to. If someone only has 5 rounds in a clip it is alot harder to kill alot of people, like say in a movie theater or a school. And astro I pointed out the reasons carrying a gun on your person wont help against a person attacking on the street in the last debate about guns. in short if they are inside of 21 feet they will kill you before you can draw your gun and fire.
The point is the more guns there are the easier it is for criminals to get them. and time and again it has been proven that arming everyone does not stop the violence, it only increases it. Yes it would be difficult to get all the guns out of the hands of criminals because you have made them so easy to get for so long. But the longer you wait the bloodier it will get.
Also, why restrict mags to just 5 rounds? That's crazy. You can miss, there could be multiple attackers, the list goes on. That would do nothing to help stop gun violence...Anyways, most of the shootings occur in gun free zones, but the criminals didn't seem to abide that law, did they?
Let me ask you something...How will
banning guns do anything besides disarm the law abiding citizens? Criminals will just revert to the black market, or make there own guns or weapons. Not to mention, there are hammers, knives, bats, axes, swords, etc.
Hunting surely is not the only reason to own a firearm. Many use them for self defense, which handguns, shotguns, and rifles alike are great choices. Handguns are a great choice for everyday protection, where rifles are very effective at long range or home defense. Shotguns arent bad for home defense, but typically arent semi automatic and are harder to rapidly fire. I would like to point out that hunting rifles and "assault rifles" are very similar, if not the same. You see, if someone was to break in to your house, if a dog were to attack you on the street, a man were to approach you with a weapob, etc etc, a gun would come very handy. Many people fall victim to scenarios like these just because they weren't armed. Assault rifles are typically semi automatic, fully automatic rifles or machine guns require special training and licencing.
I would draw a similar line as historybuff. Hunting firearms, bows and shotguns should be allowed but licensed. Magazines pinned at 5 rounds maximum. Fully automatic should be prohibited. Handguns very restricted to purchase, and carry permits even more limited to people with a valid reason to carry.
As a general rule of thumb I would say that if you don't use it for hunting then you don't need to own it. Hunting rifles, shotguns, bows would be acceptable. Machine guns, assault rifles are completely unnecessary. Hand guns should at the very least be restricted, considering a large percentage of American homicides are with hand guns.
Which guns are you in favor of banning/restricting? All, or just specific types?
By reducing the availability there will be fewer guns stolen or lost and falling into unsavory hands. This also drives up the price of black market guns since there are fewer around. Both of these things would reduce gun crime.