The debate "We should not have gun control" was started by
October 6, 2015, 11:41 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Hitmenjr posted 5 arguments, Alex posted 5 arguments, bigB posted 25 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 6 arguments, tavi posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 22 arguments, Alex posted 10 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, bigB posted 1 argument, Safooma1977 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
stevenchen, Hitmenjr, Tien, bigB, ailasorecarg, dudemark, confident, AstroSpace, Dysfunctional and 7 visitors agree.
PsychDave, historybuff, tavi, Alex, sloanstar1000, brenda773, Skeetc15, Robert16, opinionsvsfacts, leprechaundances, faith, MisterScott, KyleLedford, pajrc1234, Safooma1977 and 13 visitors disagree.
We have gun control...what we need is more idiot control
For the record I am not the one distorting the idea. This debate is about whether or not there should be gun control. Not stricter gun control, not gun banning, not any of the other things you have suggested. All rational people, and most irrational people, agree that guns need to be controlled to some extent, they just disagree on what extent that is. You have already demonstrated that you agree gun control is needed, you just refuse to change your vote.
They aren't coming, they are already there and have every right to have a say in how the nation is run.
No we are afraid the liberals are coming.
Are you afraid the British are coming?
*from a tyrannical government
and the law was written so citizens can protect themselves for a tyrannical government
When it started there was no military. There was only volunteer militia.
when it was created regular citizens had the same weapons as the military (except ordinance). I think that it still applies to today
yes well your right to own assault rifle is questionable. The law saying you have a right to bear arms is centuries old. They clearly did not think about assault rifles when they wrote it. The most advanced weaponry took like 10 minutes to load. The possibility that a single person could kill dozens of people didn't exist. the courts could easily say that the right to bear arms only applies to rifles. Which is all that existed when the law was created.
Oh and yes I have my side arm when I go to class. I have been doing it for years
I should be allowed to buy an assault rifle because it is my right to have one (I like them as well).
the debate is about whether there should be any gun control at all. If you don't believe that students should be allowed to carry guns then that is gun control. So you have to vote against this debate.
why would someone want to buy an assult riffle? they should only sell guns for self defence.
you're distorting the idea to fit your argument
no, I will not. The gun control you want is the control of buying a specific weapon (such as an assault rifle)
No, I would not give car keys to a child because, just like guns, I believe that there are and need to be controls in place to make sure only those who will behave responsibly use one.
The topics not able more or less gun control, it is whether on not there should be gun control. Are you going to change your vote since you do agree that gun control is necessary?
and to go back a few steps... would you give a child the keys to your car?
more gun control will eventually lead to the banishment of guns altogether
You and many like you want more gun control. I'm against that idea
You have voted that we should not have gun control.
did I say gun control is bad? If I did, find the quote
In that case, you are agreeing that gun control is necessary, you just draw the line in a different place.
Like I said before, not at all
Alex, you have already agreed that gun control is necessary. BigB has said that there should be absolutely no gun control and that more guns means more safety. I was asking for his input.
No one should touch the gun unless their is someone shooting at you
Yes because having a gun, no one touching it is very dangerous, it might shoot itself.
did students on campus should NEVER have gun answer your question?
I wouldn't want guns around children at all. It is not a matter of not trusting the teacher. Having guns present increases the risk of accidents. I thought that was clear from how I responded earlier. Does that explain it simply enough for you or do I need to break it down further for you?
Now how about you return the favor by answering my question. Do you believe we should arm the children so that there there will be more good guys with guns?
We need TEACHERS to have an option to have a gun with them. Students, on campus should NEVER have a gun.
No what is that chance? not very high.
no, you are misinterpreting it. Not just one teacher would be armed, others would have the chance to prevent a massacre. And no you still didn't answer my question? Let me ask again, if you can't trust a teacher with a firearm then why would you trust a teacher with your child's mind?
Let's follow your logic to the next step. What if there is an intruder and the teacher is out of the room? They have time to start killing kids before the good guy with a gun gets there. Should we then arm all of the students so that there will always be someone armed to deal with threats?
I believe by saying that the teacher is unlikely to shoot the students I was answering your question about whether I thought the teacher was going to shoot the children. If I wasn't clear enough let me know and I can try again.
but you never did answer my question, just walked around it without acknowledging it
no at all, but you're implying the teacher is going to pull out a gun and start cleaning it in the middle of class. which you not do. You don't need to clean your firearm everyday
The teacher is unlikely to shoot the children, but parents are unlikely to shoot their children too. Are you saying no children are killed to firearm accidents in the US?
With the new gun control laws proper training is required. Also the teacher would not be waving the gun around in class randomly.
Oh and the gatling gun, I've always wanted to own one... great piece of history. If you know where to buy one, let me know
I love it, you act as though the US is the only one that makes weapons or ammunition
armour piercing rounds aren't just made in US. Over bloated? lol, come up with a better one. If the teacher was armed you think they would accidentally shoot kids? if you can't trust a teacher with that then why trust a teacher with your child's mind
that doesn't make since
Here's another thought. How many children would die by introducing guns into schools? Kids die in accidental shootings far more often than school shootings.
when you create some gun control then these things will stop being so available. They will always be some illegal guns coming in.( all the ones coming into Canada come from Americans) but if you can't get the legally and there will be a lot less guns around. It will make it much harder for criminals to get them.
Maybe armor piercing ammunition is readily available in America. But you can't get it in Canada, Britain, France, or pretty well anywhere else. your ridiculously over bloated gun culture makes the stuff available. Because you think everyone deserves to have armor piercing rounds and a Gatling gun people will supply it.
the crazy a** walked into the school because he knew no one would be armed, easy targets to shoot
here is an idea, what if the teacher was armed and could have stopped the whole thing altogether
there is no regulations on something illegal, you can get it at any age. For example, armour piercing ammunition is illegal but is readily available to buy. it is not a lie it is the truth, it's just a matter if getting out and not being sheltered in your room
I was illustrating that, while banning does not prevent criminals from getting something, it does reduce availability and increase the price, which in turn limits the availability. BigB is lying and saying that illegal drugs are easier to purchase than legal drugs, thus trying to undermine the point.
Alex do you know what an analogy is?
we're talking about guns not drugs.
You honestly feel that it is easier to buy cocaine than Tylenol? What kind of neighborhood do you live in?
just like getting a weapon illegally
Hitmenjr I agree criminals will be criminals but with better gun control, it will be harder for criminals to get guns because of background checks and stuff. And good people who want guns will be trained better so they do not accidentally shoot someone.
illegal drugs are much easier to buy
So at what point do you feel justified in shooting your elected government?
Just like in the civil war...when the north did not do things in the best interests of all the states.
Gun laws also restrict the availability of prohibited weapons and inflate the black market prices due to reduced availability, limiting the number of guns available to those buying them illegally. Which is easier to buy now, illegal drugs or over the counter drugs?
Plus guns arn't only a defense aganced criminals....but also our own gov't. If we had nothing to keep our government in check, They could turn our country into a total left communist state...becuse our votes are not direct...but we have a little thing called electoral colleges.
Gun laws will only prevent people of geting guns by legal means...if you are a criminal it doesn't prevent them geting guns...thats why they are criminals...because they break the gun control laws...
Ah, I have had my votes get flipped like that on occasion. Now your arguments make a great deal more sense. (they already made sense but they seemed to be arguing against your position)
I want gun control, I voted disagree.
Beyond the assigning blame indirectly to Obama, your statement contradicts your vote. You want gun control, or else you wouldn't want any of those measures you have described controlling who has access to guns.
The two things are unrelated. The president hasn't accomplished anything related to gun control. so saying these things happen under him is pointless. he has nothing to do with it.
I want people who want guns for self defence to be able to have them, to defend themselves and their family. I want strict background checks, and limited guns avaliable to buy, no machine guns. I want people who buy guns to get proper training on how to use them.
This way good people who want guns get guns, and it makes it harder for criminals to get them.
I asked you a question, you answered it. thank you. I also said I was not blaming Obama I was just stating facts that under Obama school shooting took place.
And what gun laws has Obama instituted that you feel increased shootings?
When did I say that? I want responsible gun laws. Canada has guns, and laws governing who can buy them and what kinds are available. The US is the only nation I have ever heard of someone saying that the best solution to people being shot is to have more guns on the streets.
Yes there are also more schools in the US then anywhere. Also look up how many school shootings there were before Obama. I'm not entirely blaming Obama here, I am saying that the US under looser gun control laws did not have a problem.
What do you want no guns for anyone?
The argument is not that the guns are at fault, it is that the more readily available guns are, the more people will use them to kill people. Do you honestly believe that there are not more school shootings in the US than elsewhere?
It's always the person who shot the gun falt, unless the gun shoots itself.
so it's the shooter's fault when the lion died but the guns fault when people are killed?
the shooting in Organ took place in a gun free zone? The people could not defend themselves. If guns were outlawed, and America was a gun free zone, criminals will be criminals and break the law.
Back a long time ago the US outlawed alcoholic drinks. What happened? Criminals illegally imported beer and stuff. If this happened with guns criminals would have guns and regular law following people would not. Now criminals have gins, but don't shoot them as much because they know other people may have guns too.
an armed society is not a polite society... where there is peace,we don't need guns... where there are guns,I suppose, there can never be peace. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.An armed society will be a harmed society .
An armed society is a polite society
every developed country in the world has gun control. why would you think there shouldn't be any?