SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Did you see how wars were fought in the 1700's? Or do facts just not matter any longer?
The simple matter seems to me is that you don't understand fire arms not history.
Walmart shooting
- Thread starter BlackLivesMatter
- Start date
- Status
The simple matter seems to me is that you don't understand fire arms not history.
The whole thread is about mass shootings and enacting stricter gun laws, the latter of which is already trying to go into effect.
See H.R. 7910
People here are arguing that AR15s are "weapons of war" and they need to banned. Ar15s among many other weapons are included in that gun reform. Just because you refuse to answer anything about AR15s doesnt mean its not part of the topic. You dont like disputing facts do you. Funny how the GIF spamming only started when you joined in page 6 of this thread. Guess you dont like your favorite gifs being used against you
As outlined in page 7, another fact that you refused to address.
Australia was granted its nationhood, they didnt have to fight for it
Crime in Japan is 1/4 of what it is in the US (more due to its own culture and no thanks to any gun reform laws)
Uk is a monarchy with stricter gun laws than US yet they have a higher crime rate than US
Heres a fact, the 3 countries you used in your example have a combined population of 215 million.
Whereas the United States has 331 million people living it.
Apples to oranges.
0.5% of gun violence receives 99% of publicity
The only reason your government would want to take your guns away is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.
1911Turkey guns were restricted and a result one and a half million Armenians were unable to defend themselves and were ethnically cleansed by the government.
1929 Soviet Union established gun control and as a result Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
1933-1938 Nazi germany established gun control where countless of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled were killed.
1935 Communist China established gun control and 50 million political dissidents were arrested and killed.
1964 to 1981 Guatemala established gun control and 100,000 were killed.
1970 Uganda established gun control and from 1970-1979 300,000 Christians were killed by the dictatorial government.
1975-1977 Cambodia gun restriction laws prevented people from defending themselves against the tyrannical government who arrested and killed one million people.
1994 Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves one million were executed.
Stay mad kid.
See H.R. 7910
People here are arguing that AR15s are "weapons of war" and they need to banned. Ar15s among many other weapons are included in that gun reform. Just because you refuse to answer anything about AR15s doesnt mean its not part of the topic. You dont like disputing facts do you. Funny how the GIF spamming only started when you joined in page 6 of this thread. Guess you dont like your favorite gifs being used against you
As outlined in page 7, another fact that you refused to address.
Using bogus apples to oranges comparisons
Australia was granted its nationhood, they didnt have to fight for it
Crime in Japan is 1/4 of what it is in the US (more due to its own culture and no thanks to any gun reform laws)
Uk is a monarchy with stricter gun laws than US yet they have a higher crime rate than US
Heres a fact, the 3 countries you used in your example have a combined population of 215 million.
Whereas the United States has 331 million people living it.
Apples to oranges.
0.5% of gun violence receives 99% of publicity
The only reason your government would want to take your guns away is because they intend to do something that you would shoot them for.
1911Turkey guns were restricted and a result one and a half million Armenians were unable to defend themselves and were ethnically cleansed by the government.
1929 Soviet Union established gun control and as a result Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
1933-1938 Nazi germany established gun control where countless of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled were killed.
1935 Communist China established gun control and 50 million political dissidents were arrested and killed.
1964 to 1981 Guatemala established gun control and 100,000 were killed.
1970 Uganda established gun control and from 1970-1979 300,000 Christians were killed by the dictatorial government.
1975-1977 Cambodia gun restriction laws prevented people from defending themselves against the tyrannical government who arrested and killed one million people.
1994 Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves one million were executed.
Stay mad kid.
Last edited:
I've made clear that my point has never had anything to do with one specific gun.
the countries I listed were examples, you can look up literally any country that has actually implemented strict gun laws and the number of gun related deaths will always be drastically lower. My argument is, this indicates that a similar trend would happen with the US. And that could be said with extreme accuracy, again because of the fact that the downward trend of gun related deaths in countries with strict gun laws is apparent in literally every single instance.
Your argument has now shifted yet again, for the third time in this debate. Your new argument is:
"what if the government kills us?"
"how can we trust the government not to kill us like in all of these examples"
This is a different argument than the original debate, yet again. The debate isn't about whether or not the government would turn on its people and kill them if gun reform laws were to be put into place. The debate is about whether or not strict gun reform laws would have a positive impact on the American people. And now you're the one using hypothetical scenarios as an argument. "But what if the government kills us?" Is a hypothetical argument. because I can just counter with: "what if they don't?" Again you have demonstrated that you have poor debate etiquette and again you would have just been warned to stay on topic or risk facing a penalty. If this were a real debate, I believe you would be disqualified at this point. Saying you don't trust the government to take away guns and implying they might start killing the population is not an actual argument. It could be raised as an issue as a different debate topic, but again a hypothetical question has no bearing on the facts of this particular matter. Time for another analogy to show you why this is poor debate form:
"I believe all hats with the letter A on them should be banned"
"But can you really trust the person who would wind up with all the confiscated hats?"
In this analogy, what happens to the hats after they have been banned or speculation about the motives of whoever would wind up with all the confiscated hats is not the issue of the debate. That is going off topic, and would get you warning.
Just a side note, and this has nothing to do with the debate or its points: I personally love the point in a debate when the opponent becomes hypocritical and doesn't even realize it. Bread you spent entry after entry defending the use of guns based on the American constitution, a country that you're now saying might kill you once they take your guns. Can you really defend the constitution that was created by a government you don't trust?
the countries I listed were examples, you can look up literally any country that has actually implemented strict gun laws and the number of gun related deaths will always be drastically lower. My argument is, this indicates that a similar trend would happen with the US. And that could be said with extreme accuracy, again because of the fact that the downward trend of gun related deaths in countries with strict gun laws is apparent in literally every single instance.
Your argument has now shifted yet again, for the third time in this debate. Your new argument is:
"what if the government kills us?"
"how can we trust the government not to kill us like in all of these examples"
This is a different argument than the original debate, yet again. The debate isn't about whether or not the government would turn on its people and kill them if gun reform laws were to be put into place. The debate is about whether or not strict gun reform laws would have a positive impact on the American people. And now you're the one using hypothetical scenarios as an argument. "But what if the government kills us?" Is a hypothetical argument. because I can just counter with: "what if they don't?" Again you have demonstrated that you have poor debate etiquette and again you would have just been warned to stay on topic or risk facing a penalty. If this were a real debate, I believe you would be disqualified at this point. Saying you don't trust the government to take away guns and implying they might start killing the population is not an actual argument. It could be raised as an issue as a different debate topic, but again a hypothetical question has no bearing on the facts of this particular matter. Time for another analogy to show you why this is poor debate form:
"I believe all hats with the letter A on them should be banned"
"But can you really trust the person who would wind up with all the confiscated hats?"
In this analogy, what happens to the hats after they have been banned or speculation about the motives of whoever would wind up with all the confiscated hats is not the issue of the debate. That is going off topic, and would get you warning.
Just a side note, and this has nothing to do with the debate or its points: I personally love the point in a debate when the opponent becomes hypocritical and doesn't even realize it. Bread you spent entry after entry defending the use of guns based on the American constitution, a country that you're now saying might kill you once they take your guns. Can you really defend the constitution that was created by a government you don't trust?
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Well @Frombo the fact that banning fire arms has lead to Government kills population is the same as you saying that banning guns will lower crime. As you put
Its been said time and time again its not a gun problem but a people problem, and you can not regulate or pass laws that will govern morality and sanity.
It is statistically higher that a country with armed citizens is mor likely not going to fall to a tyrannical government, just like a country with stricter gun laws will have fewer gun related crimes. The population will just become more thoughtful on how they kill one another. A person with an axe in a crowded theater or school can kill just as many people in a short amount of time as someone with a gun.
Its been said time and time again its not a gun problem but a people problem, and you can not regulate or pass laws that will govern morality and sanity.
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
The United States is not the only country with mental illness, domestic violence, or hate-fueled ideologies, but our gun homicide rate is 26 times higher than other high-income countries.
More than 99 percent of gun deaths in the US are from shootings other than mass shootings. Nevertheless, because of the high number of casualties and often extensive and horrific media coverage associated with them, each mass shooting sends shockwaves of pain and harm through families, communities, and the nation. Just this year, as of one month ago, there have been 611 mass shootings. Between 2009 and 2020, 1,363 people in the United States were killed and 947 more were wounded in 240 mass shootings, an average of 20 shootings each year. Among the casualties were at least 362 children and teens killed as well as 21 law enforcement officers killed and 35 wounded. To some, those would be acceptable numbers, but to many, one death is too many, especially the death of a child.
The AR-15 was created as a military weapon designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition. When it comes to mass shootings, the AR-15 has been dubbed the killers' weapon of choice.
To say the AR-15 is not a military weapon is untrue. To say that this weapon is necessary for the hunting of animals is untrue. To say that this weapon is necessary for home defense is untrue. This is indeed a military weapon and if a person needs a semi-automatic weapon for hunting or home defense, it is clear they must be a terrible shot and shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
More than 99 percent of gun deaths in the US are from shootings other than mass shootings. Nevertheless, because of the high number of casualties and often extensive and horrific media coverage associated with them, each mass shooting sends shockwaves of pain and harm through families, communities, and the nation. Just this year, as of one month ago, there have been 611 mass shootings. Between 2009 and 2020, 1,363 people in the United States were killed and 947 more were wounded in 240 mass shootings, an average of 20 shootings each year. Among the casualties were at least 362 children and teens killed as well as 21 law enforcement officers killed and 35 wounded. To some, those would be acceptable numbers, but to many, one death is too many, especially the death of a child.
The AR-15 was created as a military weapon designed to be a lightweight rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow infantrymen to carry more ammunition. When it comes to mass shootings, the AR-15 has been dubbed the killers' weapon of choice.
To say the AR-15 is not a military weapon is untrue. To say that this weapon is necessary for the hunting of animals is untrue. To say that this weapon is necessary for home defense is untrue. This is indeed a military weapon and if a person needs a semi-automatic weapon for hunting or home defense, it is clear they must be a terrible shot and shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Untrue. Please before you go presenting things as fact do a short bit of research.
First developed in the 1950s for civilian use, the AR-15 rifle was named after its manufacturer, Armalite. The letters “AR” do not stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
Armalite sold the rifle’s design to another firearms manufacturer, Colt, in 1959. Four years later, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture a standard-issue model of the AR-15 — dubbed the M-16 — for soldiers in the Vietnam War.
D
Deleted member 292068
Guest
I never heard of it being made for civilian use until the late 80s and was made in the 70s after the M16.
The thread is about mass shootings. The debate is about gun control in America. Gun control has everything to do with the goverment and our rights. The information i posted was fact and has everything to do with gun control and the tragedies that have happened due to it.
We have been discussing gun control, our rights, muskets, cannons and the goverment. The 2nd ammendment has everything to do with our goverment, gun control and our right to defend ourselves from tyranny or any threat.
“A well regulated Militia, …”
A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need
“…being necessary to the security of a free State…
The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
states that citizens have the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes and that the government may not interfere with that right.
This is fact. Less than 0.5% of all gun deaths in the US are a result from mass shootings.
This is fiction.
You are going off skewed data that is spoonfed to you in the media to push a narrative.
I bet you didnt even know that 61% of "mass shootings" occur in a home.
A mass shooting is loosely defined as 3 or more killings in a single incident.
By that account roughly 30% of all mass shootings are public. So you can effectively eliminate 60% of the death statistics from your argument.
Even if you single out just public mass shootings, handguns are used in about 75% of public mass shootings whereas rifles (not just AR-15s) are used in about 25% of them. The data available doesnt even single out AR-15s. The AR-15 deaths are tallied along with rifle deaths. So you can expect the "AR15" numbers to be even lower than 25%. So can it be dubbed the "weapon of choice" by mass shooting killers when the data says otherwise? no.
You are getting into the argument of semi-automatic weapons and types of actions used to reload weaponry. Ar-15 is just a design. It is as comparable as saying you are driving a military vehicle because your car also has 4 wheels and 4 doors. Nearly all AR-15s sold to civilians are semi automatic weapons that fire 1 bullet with the single pull of a trigger. Just like handguns. The military on the other hand uses select fire weapons which include single,burst, and full auto modes. These two extra modes, while not completely outlawed to civilians are heavily regulated and out of reach of most civilians hands. See page 6 quote below.
No major military in the world uses semi automatic (single fire only) AR-15s as standard issue rifles.
This just goes to show how IGNORANT and CLUELESS some people are about guns. Yet they want to sit here and argue about taking their own constitutional rights away.
Although its not ILLEGAL to own an automatic weapon in the USA
In order to own automatic weapons:
You basically have to buy WWII era automatic guns that are over 35 years old (ANTIQUES) and over most peoples budgets.
Be a firearms DEALER/possess an FFL
Apply and pass a thorough background check that takes on average of about 1 year to process.
Pay exorbitant amounts of money to own one.
AR15s(MASS SHOOTER PEW PEWS) ARE NOT AUTOMATIC WEAPONS
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
If you actually read what I posted, you would see that I acknowledged that more than 99% of gun deaths were from shootings other than mass shootings, and you fail to acknowledge that our gun homicide rate is 26 times higher than other high-income countries, and what we might be able to do about it. You say that it is fiction that the AR-15 has been dubbed a mass killer's weapon of choice but, if indeed it is fiction, why is it that nearly every mass shooting involves an AR-15? You claim the AR-15 is a single-shot weapon but note, the AR-15 can be modified to be fully automatic, there are even instructions on the internet how to do it.
The thread is about mass shootings. The debate is about gun control in America. Gun control has everything to do with the goverment and our rights. The information i posted was fact and has everything to do with gun control and the tragedies that have happened due to it.
We have been discussing gun control, our rights, muskets, cannons and the goverment. The 2nd ammendment has everything to do with our goverment, gun control and our right to defend ourselves from tyranny or any threat.
“A well regulated Militia, …”
A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need
“…being necessary to the security of a free State…
The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom.
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
states that citizens have the individual right to own firearms for lawful purposes and that the government may not interfere with that right.
This is fact. Less than 0.5% of all gun deaths in the US are a result from mass shootings.
This is fiction.
You are going off skewed data that is spoonfed to you in the media to push a narrative.
I bet you didnt even know that 61% of "mass shootings" occur in a home.
A mass shooting is loosely defined as 3 or more killings in a single incident.
By that account roughly 30% of all mass shootings are public. So you can effectively eliminate 60% of the death statistics from your argument.
Even if you single out just public mass shootings, handguns are used in about 75% of public mass shootings whereas rifles (not just AR-15s) are used in about 25% of them. The data available doesnt even single out AR-15s. The AR-15 deaths are tallied along with rifle deaths. So you can expect the "AR15" numbers to be even lower than 25%. So can it be dubbed the "weapon of choice" by mass shooting killers when the data says otherwise? no.
You are getting into the argument of semi-automatic weapons and types of actions used to reload weaponry. Ar-15 is just a design. It is as comparable as saying you are driving a military vehicle because your car also has 4 wheels and 4 doors. Nearly all AR-15s sold to civilians are semi automatic weapons that fire 1 bullet with the single pull of a trigger. Just like handguns. The military on the other hand uses select fire weapons which include single,burst, and full auto modes. These two extra modes, while not completely outlawed to civilians are heavily regulated and out of reach of most civilians hands. See page 6 quote below.
No major military in the world uses semi automatic (single fire only) AR-15s as standard issue rifles.
The U.S. military did use the AR-15 at one time and Special Forces still uses it. The U.S. Army uses the M-16, which is also available to the public and can also be modified to be fully automatic. The military version of the AR-15 in semi-automatic mode is a 3-shot burst but can also be fully automatic. One shot or three, the AR-15 has so much energy that just one bullet can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, if it hits the liver, the liver looks like a Jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor, the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange. The injury caused by this weapon can cause a rippling effect on a wound causing damage to minor and major arteries a few inches away causing death by blood loss.
By the way, the Second Amendment reads: "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." This can also be interpreted as in the case of a threat to our nation, yes, people have the right to bear arms as a militia. However, to personally own such a weapon for no other reason, I and others believe, is contrary to what our founding fathers' had intended. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with guns for protection or for hunting, my family owns guns and so do I and for those reasons, but none of us would own or condone the ownership or use of a weapon intended for mass killing. Many in my family are war veterans who have seen first hand what these weapons can do. My father was killed serving this country with these sort of weapons. You wish to argue the point that this weapon is necessary because it is your right to have one but given the nature of the damage such a weapon can cause and its easy modification to fully automatic mode, you have yet to say 'why' such a weapon is necessary and 'why' it is apparently okay with you to use this weapon on children.
In my opinion, you appear to simply want to argue for the sake of arguing. I have made my point clear. I'm done here and have no interest in further discussing the matter.
I stated it is fact. I agree to this in the post above as well as several other pages of this debate.
This is false. Go look at page 6 for data. The claim is backed by statistics. Less than 25% of public mass shootings use a RIFLE. Even less than that is the design of rifle known as ar15.
This is false. I said ar15 is a design. It is not inclusive to single shot or burst/full. What I said was nearly all ar15s sold to civilians are single shot fire.
This argument is invalid. Basically anything can be modified. Someone can modify a jar of beans and hardware fasteners to inflict major damage. Does that mean we should ban beans and screws?
As I also stated full automatatic weapons are not illegal to own but the vast majority of gun owners don't own them. Especially not mass shooters.
The m16 and other standard issue rifles like the m4 carbine and ak 74 are select fire weapons. They do not need to be modified. They are manufactured with single, burst and full auto modes. What I said was miltaries do not use single fire ar15s.
You are inevitably agreeing with me by saying the military owns their own version of the rifle. AR15 Is just a design. Hence my car analogy.
If the type of caliber and it's lethality is your defense then
You should see how much damage a shotgun can cause. A legally owned yet never disputed weapon that is also used in mass shootings. Arguably the most lethal close range weapon of all time. Or perhaps the damage a .338 Lapua mag can do, a rare but devastating big game game ammunition.
What do you think the 2nd amendment is there for? The right to bear arms is only effective if you can own these weapons prior to the need to use them. Do you think a tyrannical government is going to allow you to own these weapons after they become tyrannical? This was proven in my post above by showing the millions slaughtered after they were disarmed by their government. All our veterans defend our rights and our freedom that's why we shouldn't take them for granted.
The second amendment states why it's necessary. I've never said it was "okay" with me for people to use these types of weapons on children. No child deserves to die by a gun let alone a mass shooter lunatic.
Last edited:
@AshleeLightBringer don't you dare bring logic into this, theres no actual debate to be had with bread lol, he just argues for the sake of arguing. you are talking to someone whos made actual powerpoints about chat ave. bread deserves to have at least something for christmas. lets give him this. you win bread, despite you being proven wrong several times over by now, you win buddy. Merry Christmas
It's a dangerous thing to mistake speaking without thought to speaking with truth.
In nearly all instances I have posted facts to support my opinions. I have posted the resources to support these facts. I have quoted arguments and have had no counter arguments to these quotes. Many like the post above end up with irrelevant responses such as "you're wrong do your own research, I'm not going to continue to argue".
I believe I'm the only person in this thread that has actually agreed to some of the comments the opposing side has made. No one else has, but they still expect people to change their perspective by not addressing the facts.
The purpose of a debate is not to win or lose, it's to change perspectives and get to the truth.
In nearly all instances I have posted facts to support my opinions. I have posted the resources to support these facts. I have quoted arguments and have had no counter arguments to these quotes. Many like the post above end up with irrelevant responses such as "you're wrong do your own research, I'm not going to continue to argue".
I believe I'm the only person in this thread that has actually agreed to some of the comments the opposing side has made. No one else has, but they still expect people to change their perspective by not addressing the facts.
The purpose of a debate is not to win or lose, it's to change perspectives and get to the truth.
.Princessa
LetYourSmileChangeTheWorldNotTheWorldChangeYourSmi
I agree. Say no more guns. I wished I lived in Australia. Does an Australia have no guns? I would love to go to a country that has no guns. I think New Zealand has no guns. I don't like guns. Guns have taking so many people's lives. It's truly sad.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Well do some research. Just because YOU haven't heard of it doesn't make it true.
How can you expect to have a debate when this is what the opposing side has to say. "im right, youre wrong. end of."
This isnt about an exchange of ideas its as its more about people who want to express their views without being open to changing them.
- Status