azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

The whole sentence that firearms are meant to kill a target is a bit misleading. Fire arms can be used to sub due a burglar just from the threat of the firearm alone. In countries such as britain where guns are heavily regulated, terrorists go to the next available strategy of using cars to run people over. Should we ban cars as they could be used to kill mass amounts of people easily? The problem in America seems to be a mental health problem and right now there does not seem to be adequate background checks when it comes to buying guns so that definitely needs to get fixed but I do not think banning guns is the way to go. Banning alcohol only lead to bootleggers picking up the supply as the demand was already there. Banning guns could lead to the same type of events where the black market picks up where the legal market left off.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

The whole sentence that firearms are meant to kill a target is a bit misleading. Fire arms can be used to sub due a burglar just from the threat of the firearm alone.Or that could just cause the burglar to shoot you in the face with his own gun.Do you guys not have burglar alarms over there in your country? We've had them over here for years you see.Why are you so stupid? I just don't understand how an entire nation of people can be so ignorant of common sense.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

If the law states that I cannot have a gun but the burglar gets one off the black market, how am I supposed to defend my property? I would much rather have a gun to ward off a criminal than have to put my faith in the police to respond to my 911 call in time to save myself from getting shot or shanked to death while I am defenseless on the phone trying to tell them my address as static takes over the line. By the way, very intelligent of you to generalize an entire country you absolute turtle minded buffoon.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

It correlates with the statistics for these last two decades. As gun ownership has been going up, gun crime has been going down altogether.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Just like the way it is in Switzerland. A high population of gun owners and near to no mass shootings.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Switzerland being 290 times smaller than the US, seems to be a good bonus for them as well. Much more stable and far easier to manage.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

That makes 0 sense. Being small and "easy to manage" doesn't affect whether someone decides to go out and use their access to firepower to try and kill other people. That and gun control is incredibly lenient if there even is any. If anything Switzerland makes a point of militarizing its population and even has a mandatory military service period.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

My statement about their relative size helps to explain that they don't have the same interconnection issues that the US has between it's states, and the corresponding government bodies. You have states that have very lenient gun laws, and others that have extremely stringent laws, as well as severe punishments for instances that should not be an infraction at all.-This also concerns the unwillingness of these states to cooperate with one another as well.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

72 million Americans own guns, so all those statistics are marginal in comparison to the sheer magnitude of gun owners. It obviously isn't the guns that are causing these issues, there are several factors at play.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

With the sheer amount of mass shootings arising in the news in recent years it's very clear there is a problem with the current system of gun ownership and acquisition more-over. I believe there needs to be more regulation and actual restrictions and qualifications required before one wishes to own a firearm. Even a requirement for firearms training at some form of shooting range would be better than our current system, which in my case was just my ID saying I was 18. I am a gun owner and advocate for owning guns for the sake of self-defense and hunting, however too many people consider them glorified toys or generally use them with a lack of care. No individual should feel justified in owning a personal arsenal consisting of everything from handguns, shotguns, bolt, semi- and fully automatic rifles and enough ammunition to fortify a small army base for a month. In contrast however that's a touchy topic as our nation could not have succeeded in the colonial era, and we arguably wouldn't be in this world today were it not for the use of firearms and regulated militias against our oppressing government, that right should never be taken away no matter how scary the thought of violent revolution is in the 21st Century. I don't want an outright ban on guns, by no means would it be effective in practice or in process, what I would like is a more regulated process to teaching individuals both gun safety and gun handling techniques.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

As an aside to that, I'd suggest not going deeper into gun regulation. Seeing as the bare standard for gun ownership is stringent enough and that's not even taking more strict state regulations into account. You also must understand that it's not easy to even acquire these same weapons when government regulation can immediately turn them into illegal items, and you're stuck second guessing your own decision. -On the note of collecting large amounts of weapons, that should be a none issue, so long as you're legally allowed to have them and you do not intend to use them to break the law. Which the metrics for legal gun owners tends to support the fact that the vast majority do not intend such ill use. Though I will note that for you to collect some of these items such as an automatic weapon. You need to have a federal license, and you must come across them at an affordable price. Such weapons are collectors items after all, and to my knowledge. No new models are being produced here in the US, for private sale.-As a standard, I believe the government should become more strict when it concerns illegally owned, or traded firearms and those that intend to use them for such means.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I've always liked the idea of common sense gun laws. Unfortunately, common sense isn't exactly all that common. especially when it's politicians who're involved. We've seen plenty throughout the years that tells us, that these people simply don't know the required amount of information necessary to creating such gun laws. -We already know that many of these guns that they tell us to be wary of and that they vouch should be made illegal. Are weapons that not actually available to the public, unless it's a simple modification that is widely available, much like barrel rails, or extended clips/magazines. This also coincides with thing like the dreaded "gun show loophole" that they like to tout all the time. Even though we know that such a loophole does not actually exist. Especially to the extent that they are trying to make it seem. -We should focus on dealing with the crime that grips many of these same cities, with overbearing gun laws. As well as work at getting these illegal weapons off the streets.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

if ANYONE on the street could just walk in and buy a gun like a pack of cigs, the world would be a little bit tipped on the wrong side. When I think about how simple it is for someone to get their hands on a firearm that means for me that a mentally unstable person could potentially abuse the power that is held, with this much power to obtain there must be a restriction, strong background checks, long process, etc. I do like the feeling of proctection and I understand how obtaning a firearm can make someone feel safe when needed. I am not COMPLETLY against the idea of guns, there just needs to be enforcement to insurance it is in the right hands.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

When I think about how simple it is for someone to get their hands on a firearm that means for me that a mentally unstable person could potentially abuse the power that is held, with this much power to obtain there must be a restriction, strong background checks, long process, etc. I do like the feeling of proctection and I understand how obtaning a firearm can make someone feel safe when needed. I am not COMPLETLY against the idea of guns, there just needs to be enforcement to insurance it is in the right hands.I think you've made some fair comments.The fact is that you can't separate one group of people from the other. If you legalise guns for people who just want to feel safe, then you also legalise them for people looking to make threats and/or commit violence. Guns are always going to be more useful for the second group.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I think they should close the loophole that one does not need to have a background check if buying a gun at a gunshow. This loophole undermines the entire cause of the gun control laws we have enacted.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I think they should close the loophole that one does not need to have a background check if buying a gun at a gunshow.That isn't how criminals are getting guns. They get them through through straw purchases, corrupt gun dealerships and theft.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

This is one avenue a criminal could go to obtain a firearm. It looks like what you are proving is that criminals won't follow the law when it comes to obtaining a firearm. Weird to think that more gun control would sway them to start obtaining guns legally... How odd that criminals are stealing guns, if only it was illegal to steal guns...
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

There is no gun show loophole. If you are a licensed seller of firearms, and you sell a weapon to anyone that should not possess it. Then you are in violation of the law, which is why all FFL holders are required to give these background checks. Not doing so leads to severe fines, and a lengthy jail sentence of 5 to 10 years.This even comes into play with personal sells of firearms, between someone who isn't licensed and anyone that they may know. Because it's still a violation of the law, to sell these weapons to someone who should not legally own them.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

It depends on how you define "control" I don't believe in banning guns but I do believe in updating the way people purchase guns and who. However I do agree that gun rules and tests to own a gun should be stricter and higher so that crazy people don't get guns, however the full ban of guns is too much for me. I have trouble with the narrative of guns in the media. I often see in the news terrible reports of shootings and gun violence but I often never see all the times gun defense has saved so many lives. According to research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Guns are used 16 to 100 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. When it comes to mass shootings, nearly 90% of cops agree that the presence of legally armed citizens would “reduce” or “avoid” them entirely. There are countless amounts of robberies, rapes, assaults, that are prevented when the victim is armed. Guns can do evil but they can also do good. A gun is an object just like a knife, A knife can be used for cooking purposes (good) but it is also a preferred weapon of public mugging to stab someone to death and rob everything they have on them as silently as possible. I believe that we stop a bad guy with a gun by a good guy with a gun. I believe that as Americans we are given rights such as the 2nd amendment for our own self defense. We have seen multiple examples of excessive government control and gun control go wrong in other countries. The Second Amendment isn't just for self-defense in the home. Its goal was to ensure that no military power, foreign or domestic, could ever defeat the country. For example, I have family friends who are from Venezuela and they tell me their own personal stories about police officers walking into their homes and robbing them at gunpoint. In that specific case there was nothing they could do about. Their own government system was turning on them. Who are they gonna call? The police? When they were the ones robbing them. When we give too much power to the government and take away citizen rights such as gun defense we are losing our freedom to ever fight back. Let's say we get rid of guns legally. Will this prevent mass shooting or will people just find another way to get them? Then locals who actually want guns as self defense won't have access to them but criminals who are the majority user, will get them illegally because it doesn't go against them morally or ethically. A German high school student went on a killing spree in 2009, killing 15 people. He did not own a gun. A shooter was able to find and use a gun even in a country with strict gun laws. Shooters will get access to a gun, even with strict gun laws. Bad people will do bad things but it is our responsibility to prepare and be safe with defense in any way you choose. You shouldn't feel forced to own a gun but you shouldn't prevent others who do, for safety purposes.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Everyone seems to have a different concept of "control" when talking about gun control. I do believe that background checks are acceptable when acquiring a firearm so it won't fall into the wrong hands. On the other hand, it shouldn't be near impossible to successfully acquire a gun. Being able to protect yourself is a necessity in this world. Let's say someone with malicious intent came onto your property. You call the police and they say they're on their way. Would you be ok sitting defenselessly until the police arrived, not knowing how long it would take? Sometimes the circumstances could be even worse and you don't have time to call the police. People often look at the harm firearms cause because that is what media spotlights. We often forget that firearms are also a means of protection and have saved a good amount of lives.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I am more in the middle with this type of argument. I do believe that it should be harder for criminals, and unstable people to be able to get a gun, but I also am a firm believer in the Second Amendment. One of the main arguments against the Second Amendment is that it is outdated, however a tragedy that caused riots about a year ago shows that the Second Amendment is not outdated. The death of George Floyd was tragic, and it caused riots across the U.S. I remember watching the news of riots in LA, and seeing some rioters trying to rob a family owned store, however they were guarding their property with guns, and were able to scar the rioters away. I think that this is just one instance where the Second Amendment was able to help protect people and their property.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

I remember watching the news of riots in LA, and seeing some rioters trying to rob a family owned store, however they were guarding their property with guns, and were able to scar the rioters away.Let me explain factual reality to you, since you appear to be struggling with it a little bit.In order to arm property owners you have to arm the very individuals looking to rob them. Understand? Property owners don't need guns in places where they aren't at risk of being attacked with a gun. Do you see how basic common sense works?
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

There are already a lot of gun control laws, and if the police would enforce them and use the laws to protect the citizens, we wouldn't need anymore laws. New laws are just overlapping other laws, which just confuse people and law enforcement. It's no mystery that politicians make it seem like new laws are essential, forcing them into the books, but I think there are just too many of them.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Obviously, regulation on guns is a necessity, but trying to control the domestic procurement of firearms is a fool's errand. Laws don't just work outright, and we can't assume any prohibitionist policy regulating or banning guns would make the number of gun owners shrink or simply disappear. In the face of this fact, whether gun ownership is good or bad for the population is irrelevant. The market demand for guns thanks to gun culture in the United States is simply too high, and the application of firearms is too versatile for the American population to be willing to give up the right to own a large range of firearms.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Obviously, regulation on guns is a necessity, but trying to control the domestic procurement of firearms is a fool's errand.Oh God, here we go again. Same ignorant comments."No, I won't try because it won't work.""But it already has worked in a variety of different countries"."Don't care. Fool's errand. Won't try."
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

"Banning drugs sure did work now we'll ban guns so that the cartels can sell both of them to criminals."
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Banning drugs sure did work now we'll ban gunsBanning guns DID work though, in all the developed countries it was tried. Which begs the question: why are you comparing a gun ban to a drugs ban, instead of the many successful gun bans?Let me answer that one for you. It's because you are a ridiculous fucking idiot who is not intelligent enough to think or reason for himself. Your arguments are confined to repeating the things you hear on right wing talk shows.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Please tell me how American citizens won't just buy guns from Cartels. Do you think that 40% of American households are going to willingly give their guns to the government? How do you suspect they'll remove those guns? Will they have to raid 72 million Americans? I don't think I need to remind you about how the conduct of the Police, S.W.A.T., and ATF are not exactly in the interest of preserving life. Your "developed" nations are not comparable to the United States because gun ownership was often reserved for nobles. It is ingrained in American culture. We literally would not be a nation without guns, which is something you could not possibly understand despite your claim to be much more historically versed. Stop using ad hominem, you're sounding unreasonable.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Laws don't just work outright, and we can't assume any prohibitionist policy regulating or banning guns would make the number of gun owners shrink or simply disappear.God this is impossible when you have to deal with people who are this insane.You won't assume banning guns will reduce gun crime, but you WILL assume banning guns is a "fool's errand"?? Just what the fuck is anybody supposed to say in response to that? Your entire post is an exercise in personal bias.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

It would reduce gun crime, but that only gets rid of the gun aspect. Not to mention the fact that it would be quite literally impossible to disarm the cartel and other crime syndicates. Disarming Americans is just as foolish because 40% of American households harbor firearms. It's not feasible. I don't know what you think is happening on the island of England but the gun ban didn't make crime go away and it definitely wouldn't have been enforceable if it weren't a remote island with no means of producing anything. Maybe have some tea before replying, you sound a bit hot-headed at the moment.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

I don't know what you think is happening on the island of England but the gun ban didn't make crime go away and it definitely wouldn't have been enforceable if it weren't a remote island with no means of producing anything. Crime is never going away but gun crime cannot happen without guns can it ?Gun accidents also cannot happen without guns can it ?
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Crime is never going away but gun crime cannot happen without guns can it ?😂👌 It is literally amazing that there are people in this world who are so stupid and twisted with bias that they can't accept such a simple fact.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

It is literally amazing that there are people in this world who are so stupid and twisted with bias that they can't accept such a simple fact.It’s absolutely astonishing really , this will now devolve into “well they will substitute knives for guns “ and then attempt to justify why guns are necessary , I firmly believe a fair proportion of Americans cannot think for themselves if anything contradicts their narrow world view they retreat into a ridiculous game of denialism and contradictory nonsense all to preserve indefensible belief systems
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Ah, the Eurocentrist circlejerk has arrived. I don't expect either of you to understand why trying to disarm 72 million Americans could cause an incredible amount of instability at best and an all-out civil war at worst. especially when gun crime is marginal compared to the sheer number of gun owners. You literally are asking for something that is not feasible in the current cultural climate. Whether it would solve any problems or not seems to be the least of your concerns. See what happens when you try to disarm places like Oregon or Texas, it won't go over well.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Ah, the Eurocentrist circlejerk has arrived. I don't expect either of you to understand why trying to disarm 72 million AmericansOh Jesus Christ you're just so goddamned stupid. Nobody has any intention of "trying to disarm 72 million Americans" you literal idiot. That isn't how it works. Banning guns makes gun ownership illegal. If you own a gun after that date and you get caught you'll go to jail, exactly like you would for any other crime.What you stupid clowns love to do is throw out objections based entirely on your own false reasoning.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

You just contradicted yourself. Do you seriously think people will just willy-nilly go to jail and have their guns confiscated? Is that not "trying to disarm" them? It is incredible how you can call me an idiot and then directly contradict yourself in the same breath.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Car accidents and the deliberate striking of pedestrians wouldn't be possible without cars. But it doesn't make sense to ban cars, does it?
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Car accidents and the deliberate striking of pedestrians wouldn't be possible without cars. So Americans use cars to deliberately strike others?But it doesn't make sense to ban cars, does it?A car is used to get one from A to B , a gun is used to kill others you dumb fuck , one can be involved in an accident a car is not meant to be used to kill others you idiot
Debate: Gun control
Side: Proponents of more gun control

Guns are much more widely used for hunting and sport in the US. You argue that gun accidents, suicide, and homicides are a reason to ban guns would be banned when a maximum of .002% of all gun ownership causes gun violence and .005�count for gun deaths. It seems like overkill to just outright ban them.
Debate: Gun control
Side: Opponents of gun control

Guns are much more widely used for hunting and sport in the US.Absolute pitiful rubbish. You are truly not in a winning position when you refuse to acknowledge the reason for the existence of guns.