The debate "Gun free zones are bad" was started by
May 20, 2016, 1:52 pm.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
dalton7532 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
dalton7532, Austin7779, josh_rocks and 1 visitor agree.
Nemiroff, historybuff, codyray16, Kslonerdz, Caitz2427, SwaggerPoptart, Zuhayr and 2 visitors disagree.
how about none criminal confrontations involving armed road rage, alcohol, or debt?
reality is a lot more complicated then stick figure cartoons with smiley faces.
besides, are your walls bullet proof? will you be able to consider what room your wife and kids are in? how about your neighbors?
wouldn't any none firearm weapon be pretty effective in a close quarters indoor struggle?
and if your outnumbered with guns, your definitely dead. and your family.
in a nation where guns are banned, guns will be very difficult to find. any criminal breaking into ordinary homes will not be armed. I'm sure very powerful criminal groups will be able to arm themselves somewhat, but your house won't be their target.
I believe there are statistics that show having a gun actually increases the chances of you or your family dying.
-That 200,000 statistic is false. It is around 300.
your argument is invalid because there are lots of free democratic countries with restrictions on guns and those things do not happen. Canada, the UK and Australia all have guns restrictions and they don't have a tyrannical government. they have significantly less mass killings. they also have massively less gun related accidents. you have 200,000 people accidentally shot per year. that is insane.
-If somebody were to come into your house and kill everybody you love, you would want a gun to defend them and yourself. If you say otherwise, you are a liar. That is the point of having a gun.
-If everybody in Cuba and China had a gun, they would not be implementing these policies.
-If we ban all guns, there would be terrorist attacks, mass killings, and homicides, but the only difference is people won't be able to defend themselves.
in Canada we have no guns in schools and very few incidents of people bring shot in schools. the problem to people getting shot isnt a lack of guns, it is an over abundance of guns. suggesting you can stop shootings by proliferating guns is like saying you can stop obesity by eating as much as you want. it just doesn't make any sense.
arming teachers might lower casualties slightly. I emphasize might. but it does absolutely nothing to address the problem. it only attempts to fight a symptom. and it likely will only cause more problems than it solves.
-We will make sure mad men cannot get guns. People who are mentally ill should not have guns, but we cannot herd defenseless people into an area where they are defenseless because ultimately that is what gun free zones do. I am not saying just anybody should have guns in schools. It would be best if a few trained and mentally stable teachers had a gun to defend themselves and their students.
or instead of filling an area full of children with guns, you could simply make sure a mad man can't get an automatic weapon. since nearly 200,000 people a year are accidentally shot, a number way higher than the times they are used in self defense, perhaps putting guns near children is a bad idea. idiotic you might say.
-Gun free zones herd defenseless people into an area where they are absolutely defenseless. For instance, schools they are a gun free zone, and any mad man can go in there and kill as much people they want with out no immediate opposer. We cannot continue to allow people to be herded into an area where they are absolutely defenseless, especially children.
people carrying guns into a gun free zone are bad. if we can't blame guns for the crimes they are used to commit, then you can't blame gun free zones for being the victims of those crimes.