The Gun Debate

Posted by: DailyDebated

The gun debate is a serious matter. Personally I think that potential buyers should get background checked and have no criminal record. Many people have gotten killed because of criminals getting to buy guns just because they have money. Where ever there are guns being sold there needs to be background checks too.

Vote
112 Total Votes
1

Or are you for guns being sold with background checks?

77 votes
12 comments
2

You know what really annoys me? When people say there should be no guns. The bad people who get the guns and shoot down places like school already get there guns illegaly so hows making guns illegal going to help. Plus it isn't the guns fault. It's the person who uses the gun. When a driver hits someone you think "Oh it's the driver" but when someone uses a gun you think "Oh it's the gun" why? Just why?

15 votes
4 comments
3

Are you for guns sold without background checks?

7 votes
1 comment
4

Should the government put in a system where private citizens can do their own background checks before selling their firearms?

6 votes
2 comments
5

The USA should just ban guns like Europe has. It's much safer and will save so many lives.

4 votes
0 comments
6

Most people agree on Background checks. There are already background checks for 60% or more of all gun sales. Background checks do not prevent gun crime.

2 votes
0 comments
7

Ban Ammo

Because ammo is not mentioned in the second amendment.
1 vote
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Modis says2018-02-11T02:33:22.9852680Z
Its seriously messed up how protective of their guns Americans are
Leaning says2018-03-07T12:04:52.8415712Z
Is not.
Mister_Man says2018-03-08T02:50:41.8582311Z
@Modic - As a Canadian who lives in a country with strict gun control, I disagree. When 300 years of evolution has taught you to protect yourself and grow/adapt to gun culture, it isn't messed up at all to react to a sudden, drastic change in laws and culture. Not only that, but do you honestly believe criminals will turn in all their already unregistered firearms? The only people gun laws will take guns away from are peaceful, law abiding citizens.
MacWorth says2018-03-09T23:14:23.4673757Z
Its not the guns. Its the people who use them.
sadolite says2018-03-10T13:29:33.3613036Z
The gun debate was settled 250 years ago.
linate says2018-03-10T15:48:06.2699342Z
Here is some information on gun control, policy, and law https://guneducationalinformation.Weebly.Com/
FollowerofChrist1955 says2018-03-10T18:55:46.8373036Z
Emotional nonsense! ... 18 school shootings out of more than 98,000 Schools that rounds out to 0.01% On average there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S. PEOPLE that's on a populace of 323.1 million (2016). That IS 0.004% THERE IS NO GUN PROBLEM! As to Schools ... No backpacks, Metal detectors at Entrance, Officers at detectors with weapons. Do it NOW! Gun legislation takes to long on a problem that obviously ISN'T a REAL Problem reaching a level of even 1%. Put on your Big Person panties and be adult!
ivyg says2018-03-11T16:18:17.3850227Z
I really dislike when people say stuff like "gun laws were settle with the Constitution". Okay yes that's totally true, but those same people who made that amendment owned other people, THOSE SAME PEOPLE BELIEVED IN SLAVERY!!! Should we really still be under those laws?!?
Mister_Man says2018-03-12T22:46:24.1988256Z
@IVYG - Although you have somewhat of a decent point, to say "these people believed in something bad, therefore every single thing they believed in was bad" is just not a sound argument. If you had said it was the 18th century and times have changed, that would make more sense. However gun ownership is a key part of American culture and the government is more likely to become tyrannical (although not anytime soon) than most other developed nations in the world, which is the primary purpose for creating the 2nd amendment to begin with. "Protecting against a tyrannical government" is not on the same moral level as owning slaves, lol
rocinante says2018-03-12T22:54:20.1542060Z
If you shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight, then it makes sense that you should bring a gun to a fight against F16s, M1s, nuclear tipped warheads, nerve agents. The proliferation of small arms cannot protect against a tyrannical government that possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Mister_Man says2018-03-12T23:35:15.1424256Z
@Rocinante - I agree. I'm simply pointing out that the primary reason they implemented the 2nd amendment was a good one, and not on the same moral level as owning slaves. Although I'm sure if the US government were to become tyrannical, they wouldn't nuke their own country. With that being said, the culture that has grown from gun ownership cannot be changed by taking away everyone's guns. The amount of guns in circulation and amount of illegal guns that belong to criminals is just way too high to make any positive change by removing them from the picture.
DangerBoi420 says2018-03-13T00:59:01.1156206Z
I think they should ban all military grade or full automatic rifles. They are not needed.
Jamis1124 says2018-03-13T13:45:48.6185742Z
@DangerBoi420 I don't believe that your opinion is very valid for a discussion about firearms. If you had any knowledge on the subject you would be able to conclude that fully automatic rifles were banned in 1986. Also the claim from gun grabbers like yourself is that an AR-15 is a military grade weapon, which it is not, the militarized version of this is the M-16
ReptilianPlatypus says2018-03-13T15:07:49.2801583Z
The property of an American citizen are protected in the constitution, and guns are property. If someone decided to take your $60,000.00 car you bought, that probably wouldn't sit well with you. Now you invested that money, as a feasible means of transportation. Of course you could always use a tram or bus but you chose a car, which gives you the ability to rely on your own self to get around. Cars have flaws but you want your own means of transportation, even though they release toxic gases and emit noise, you don't care. Guns are just like this, a man invests $2,000.00 on self defense because he trusts himself to defend his family more than law enforcement (who usually end up doing the clean up work rather than the defending) he has the right to do so. Now just like you need a driver's license a legal gun owner needs a gun license, and the harder you make it to get a driver's license, or a gun license, the more people will avoid getting one. I could go on with the similarities, car accidents-phyco with a gun, but bottom line is I have a right to personal transportation, I have the right to self-defense.
ReptilianPlatypus says2018-03-13T15:09:22.4875225Z
The property of an American citizen are protected in the constitution, and guns are property. If someone decided to take your $60,000.00 car you bought, that probably wouldn't sit well with you. Now you invested that money, as a feasible means of transportation. Of course you could always use a tram or bus but you chose a car, which gives you the ability to rely on your own self to get around. Cars have flaws but you want your own means of transportation, even though they release toxic gases and emit noise, you don't care. Guns are just like this, a man invests $2,000.00 on self defense because he trusts himself to defend his family more than law enforcement (who usually end up doing the clean up work rather than the defending) he has the right to do so. Now just like you need a driver's license a legal gun owner needs a gun license, and the harder you make it to get a driver's license, or a gun license, the more people will avoid getting one. I could go on with the similarities, car accidents-phyco with a gun, but bottom line is I have a right to personal transportation, I have the right to self-defense.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

>