The debate "No person under 21 should be allowed access to the internet think of the teens eating Tide Pods" was started by
April 1, 2018, 7:55 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Matt354 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 7 arguments, NeoArchaic posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matt354, Ian and 2 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Against_eu, NeoArchaic, historybuff, Conservative81 and 11 visitors disagree.
I dont believe people were not talking about pistols, it's just that assault weapons are even more crazy and still being defended.
if you started talking about owning tanks and I guarantee you the assault weapons wont come up for a while lol.
Finding the source of suicide is not ridiculous, count me out in banning "assault weapons" if you think they are the direct cause of murders. Especially since pistols cause most of the deaths and are often defined as assault weapons on any state
I would say violent murders are a much higher priority then self inflicted suicides. if it was 80% suicide maybe, but a 40/60 spread is way more priority on the murders!!!!
this is a ridiculous proposition.
It's also clear that you ignore the fact that most of the deaths by firearm are on average 60% percent by suicides, you bring up the children dying from murders by guns as the primary issue when it clearly shouldn't. Stop bringing that up and give me ideas what can stop suicides...
Yes, and already addressed that the attacker having the gun usually runs away when the defender has a gun because the criminal/attack expects that person to be unarmed. And the criminals in question are most of the time not part of the justified homicide statistic because they ran away from the defender, which you clearly ignored.
Even angels carry swords. Good people should own guns.
no. we've been through this. you are way more likely to die if both you and your attacker have a gun. you are way more likely to live if your attacker does not have a gun.
are there cases where being armed saved someone's life? yeah, probably. were there 11,208 cases in 2013 where the attacker having a gun resulted in someone's death? undeniably, yes.
alot of those people would be alive if the attacker didn't have a gun.
No, more lives would be saved by not taking people's means for self defense. Gun control takes away those means, not save their lives. You are implying guns are only used to commit crimes, or only way for criminals to do so
so you're saying you would only be saving thousands of lives per year instead of 10s of thousands? do you really think the right to spray lead at animals is more valuable than thousands of lives?
Yes lesser crimes by gun, but no statistics show overall crime; crimes committed by gun is negligible.
what are you even talking about? of course there is a correlation between less guns and lesser crimes. without a gun it is assault, maybe attempted murder. with a gun it is 17 counts of murder. that is very much a "lesser" crime.
Yes it does prevent more criminals from having guns, but unfortunately for you, there is no correlation between having stricter gun control and lesser crimes. In fact, more than half of the deaths by firearms are from suicides in the United States, Japan and South Korea (*developed countries*) are far high on the list in suicides in the world where the US is no where close, despite the strict gun control. This fact is strong enough to tell me guns are not the source of the issue on either crime or suicides, only the symptom.
your argument is that if some criminals can get guns then you shouldn't have any restrictions on guns. I just extended your argument to show how rediculous you sound.
restricting guns has worked in lots of other countries. it significantly reduces criminals access to guns. this isn't something that is debatable. it is established fact. and that fact saves lives.
and as a side note, virtually all the illegal guns coming into Canada are made in American factories. so if you could get a handle on your gun problems it would save lives here too.
I'm not impressed that you just beat down a scare crow, what kind of nut job has the money to buy a nuke? Oh that's right! Kim Jung Un does! America should just have a nuke free zone nationally and he would definely comply lol
Historybuff is funny.
If everyone had 75,000,000 dollars, they aren't going to buy nuclear warheads with it. You couldn't ban a person who could afford one from owning one though.
I agree with Historybuff. If everyone can get one including Satan himself, let them keep their so called nuclear weapons. Why should the criminal get to be the only one making threats to blow ?!&% up?
that's like saying some criminal, somewhere can get their hands on a nuclear bomb so we should let everyone have one. it makes no sense.
Because the terrorists that torn up France with many illegal obtained and features that are illegal in France with over 3 rounds and full auto is proof enough that criminals get their guns anyways
The tidepod meme was a poor idea.
My children are in public schools due to my financial situation. The teachers assign them work that requires use of the internet.
with no internet access, myth will truimph over knowledge.
also, I just looked up the gun laws in the Czech republic. they have to pass a written test, a practical exam, a police check and have a letter from their doctor that they are fit to own a gun before they can get a license to own one. these laws are much stricter than America's where anyone can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon no questions asked.
ok so you round a corner and get shot by a criminal with a gun. why would you thank your lucky stars that in your holster there is a nice shiny gun that didn't do you any good as quickly bleed out? does the thought of it comfort you as you are dying?
I don't know much about the Czech republic so I can't really comment on that. but I can tell you that Britain with their much stricter gun laws is significantly safer than America.
I would be counting my lucky stars if I had my gun along with the proper training, and if my training serves me very well, I don't even need to fire a shot, the person intending to assaul me follows my orders while I call the police or runs away in terror, and I don't have to thank the state for passing stricter gun laws.
And what of these other European states? You do realize there is no correlation between looser gun laws and higher crime rates right? If that is the case, a first world countries like the Czech Republic (located in east Europe; Ranking 2nd with the freest gun laws in the world with their very similar constitution to the American 2nd Amendment) and the United States would rank the highest murder rates in the in the entire world for crime rates; this is hardly true. So stop believing western European countries are a safe haven, I hardly believe the United Kingdom, with ridiculously strict weapons laws, is much safer than the Czech Republic.
By all that's holy, you are such a fool for limiting murder and killings to guns. It's not that killers don't have access to guns. There are so many other ways that killers are killing people everyday. You damn baphomet, that's why you lie and pretend someone can't toss an M-80 through a car window easier than shooting someone with a gun. You have a fantasy of shooting unarmed opponents only, and you have a fetish in seeing humans as lifetime slaves who can never be forgiven by you or your employer, even though such a person has never killed your mother, father, sister brother, or anyone else in your family. People like you should have fallen with Robert E. Lee.
You are the one who deserves to never be forgiven, and people allowed to shoot at you while you are unarmed. I would sign that law with a smile, just to see how fast you go attempt suicide.
I would think you would be thanking your lucky stars that he isn't chasing you with a gun. as a degenerate drug addict caricature, he probably has lower endurance, weaker body, and handicapped coordination. on the other hand if he had a gun, you'd probably be dead before you even realized he was after you, long before you had a chance to even reach for your weapon.... aren't you glad that criminal didn't have access to a firearm?
I guess you could hope his terrible coordination makes him miss, but that could still suck for all the innocent people around you.
regarding the states with gun laws. state borders dont have customs agents and thus allowing people to bring weapons in easily avoiding the laws. the question then becomes is this a failure of the law or its enforcement? what isn't in question is the similar situation of other first world nations with nation wide gun laws and border customs agents. their results are pretty one sided. is there a reason you are actively avoiding their results?
If an enraged and drug induced person charges me with a knife to kill me while I have a gun to defend myself with, that person who charges at me is dead too. Gun control seeks to incriminate me for doing so as if I am the real criminal while the drug induced person is the innocent victim, this is morally destructive.
And by the way, you are right. It isn't fair to compare the crime rates of the United States to other developing countries, let's try comparing different gun laws between States in the United States because it varies widely between very strict and very loose laws. Is there a correlation between looser gun laws and higher crime rates between those states? Absolutely not! I'd say it's unfair to compare the United States to other developed countries just as much as comparing the US to developing countries.
lol. sure compare the United states to 3rd world countries....
how about make equal comparisons to similar countries? unlike the nations you mentioned we have functioning law enforcment and general law and order, similar to the nations with stricter gun laws and far less crime.
if the other first world countries have stricter gun laws AND are safer, how would we no longer be as safe as them by adopting similar laws to them?
you're comparing America to 3rd world countries that are unable to enforce their laws. do you think American law enforcement is so terrible they can't enforce America's laws? it isn't a valid comparison.
no one is suggesting going from 0 to 100% gun restrictions. they would need to be slowly ramped up over time to prevent chaos.
and if that beefy man shoots you before you can draw a gun then it doesn't matter what guns you own, you are dead. everyone is safer if criminals aren't armed with guns.
If I were a very small framed women or old man, and other beefy men had intentions to assault me with bats and knives, my odds of survival is significantly higher if I had a gun with decent amount of training...
Making the argument that countries having stricter gun laws and having less crime is weak, I can name many countries that have much stricter gun laws (Mexico, Costa Rica, Venezuela) and much higher crimes than the United States. If the United States were to adopt the same gun control laws like Luxembourg, Canada, or Germany, it wouldn't be safe like those other "1st world countries" anymore, it would look a lot more like a stereo-typically corrupt Latin American country that is war torn by much worse than the American Civil War in the 1860's.
that argument is weak. lots of countries have strict gun laws and they have considerably lower crime rates than you do. the idea that if everyone is armed you are somehow safer isn't true.
if the guy trying to hurt you doesn't have a gun you are considerably more likely to survive whether you have a gun or not. largely because if the guy trying to kill you isn't incompetent then he will kill you before you can get to your gun. and if he is incompetent then you didn't need the gun anyway.
That destruction can be used for self defense too, you are saying that as if guns were only used to murder people.
driving a car has constructive uses. Guns are primarily used to destroy. there is no reason a teenager should have access to a weapon capable of killing dozens of people.
I know, I intend to be sarcastic, and I must admit it is bad sarcasm for California requiring people to be 21 years old to purchase a firearm quite recently; since no change in age requirements for driving on the streets hasn't been made for 16 year olds.
do you see no positive aspects to internet access?
No, but the dangers can also come with teens getting information how to make improvised weapons that can be a lot more efficient in killing people than any firearm, or finding loopholes in gun laws. In fact, any teenager from any state can purchase a lethal and full auto airgun online which is in many ways more lethal than a firearm, in any state and no paperwork or criminal evaluation.
no teenager ever shot 17 people to death with information.
We can agree on restricting a constitutional right to purchase a handgun from anyone under 21, this should apply to all other constitutional rights like information from the internet. Hence wise, the kids that protested to Washington D.C. about gun violence we're too young to speak and rally, and need to be placed in jail.