CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Guns don't protect anyone, they endanger their owners
Guns do not offer any kind of protection. If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at. Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet. Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests? Why do people believe guns will protect them?
I think the governments should be the first to quit having lethal arsenals, and rather switch to advanced non-lethal weapons to stop criminals. Then criminals would follow by not feeling the need to "protect themselves" with guns against guns.
It is foolish in the art of warfare to broadcast your weaknesses to the enemies.
As far as they need to know, all we have to do is push a button and their country is instantly wiped off the face of the map. They have to believe we are crazy enough to seriously consider this, whether or not we would or are even actually capable of doing this.
No, we need a militia for the security of a free state just as much as we need an armed populace to regulate the militia.
First, what advanced non-lethal option to you believe has the stopping power of a gun?
Second, criminals arm up to protect themselves from rivals, not from the government. Disarming law enforcement while murderous criminals still carry is a recipe for disaster.
First, what advanced non-lethal option to you believe has the stopping power of a gun?
A mandatory five year prison sentence. Furthermore, your language is false (i.e. "belief") because this non-lethal option has already been tested in other countries with great success.
Second, criminals arm up to protect themselves from rivals
So we should sell guns to criminals and people thinking of becoming criminals because "criminals arm up to protect themselves from rivals"? Are you stupid? The thing you described is a PROBLEM. And what do we do with PROBLEMS? We try to SOLVE them. What we do not do with PROBLEMS is voluntarily make them worse and pretend this is what we are supposed to do with PROBLEMS.
Mandatory sentencing in a country with high crime rates leads to high incarceration rates, which is one more thing for pukes like you to bitch about.
Other countries are not the US. Cultures vary. What works there won’t necessarily work here. Switzerland has high gun ownership and low crime. The reason is culture. You wouldn’t know anything about that.
When I said that criminals arm to to protect themselves from rivals, you know damn well that I was referring to the post that says we should disarm the government first and the criminals will follow suit.
Mandatory sentencing in a country with high crime rates leads to high incarceration rates
America already has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world because of its stupid war on drugs.
Other countries are not the US. Cultures vary.
In no culture is selling people guns a solution to gun violence.
When I said that criminals arm to to protect themselves from rivals, you know damn well that I was referring to the post that says we should disarm the government first and the criminals will follow suit.
I know no such thing. The argument that criminals will still have guns even if we ban guns is absolutely bog standard, generic, gun nut nonsense, used with frequent abandon by the right wing. Moreover, the reason you were writing nonsense does not concern me. I am only concerned with the fact that it is nonsense. If criminals refuse to comply with the law then we do not respond by complying with the criminals. That is not the way civilised society works, mate.
The war on drugs is a different conversation. But the fact that we have a high crime rate means a high incarceration rate makes sense, even if we drop mandatory minimums for drug trafficking.
I know no such thing.
This could be your standard response to just about everything.
Making criminality more effective by eliminating law enforcement's ability to stop a gunman is not a recipe for peace. Fortunately, no one will ever have to experience your idea put to practice.
From what basis do you presume that criminals use guns because they feel they need to protect themselves against the government? Your causal connection here seems very tenuous and frankly naive. Criminals use guns to commit crimes because they're effective for the task. There's no clear reason why disarming the government would change that, and in fact it seems pretty obvious that it would make them an even more effective tool with which to commit crimes since it makes you literally more lethal than the people who might try to stop you.
Guns and bullets cost money and crime is a business, also the sentence for robbery is a lot lower than the sentence for murder. See crime, as everything else works under the law of profit-versus-risk. Any individual crime is better performed with lower costs and lower risks. So, saving bullets and sparing lives is actually better for a criminal; guns are a last resort in case they have to open their way against idiots shooting at them. If they knew those idiots won't shoot lethal stuff, they'd probably save the guns and bullets and get more profit from their crimes.
Presuming that criminals are rational then they would desire to save bullets and spare lives regardless of what the gun control laws are or how militarized the government is. Therefore, the connection you've alleged is still non-evident.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh well... I would say your problem begins with the fact that most crimes occur/require the use of a lethal weapon. The fact is you aren't gonna rob a bank with a tazer or beanbag gun. Thus criminals will keep their guns, with all due respect... that idea is crazy at best.
In the United Kingdom I believe that they have cops with only batons and if someone like a robber or a school shooter or anything came tell me what are they going to do to stop them, charge them? If they had cops with lethal weapons we could stop the shooter and we'd have less casualties and I think that's a good thing.
Criminals don't obey gun laws. Criminals still have guns.
This is a massive and purposeful distortion in which you attempt to vastly inflate the number of people who feel confident about owning a gun in a country with a five year minimum sentence for gun possession, by labelling that group "criminals". As societies like the UK prove, the VAST MAJORITY of criminals DO OBEY GUN LAWS.
The UK is on an island, has a small population, and has its western culture more protected. The United States is not on an island, has a huge population, and is very multicultural with thousands of miles of open borders.
The UK does not have illegal migrants crossing its borders like the U.S., creating gangs like MS-13 and gang gun violence.
Police in London are now arming up because of Islamic terrorism on the city.
I guess the only logical option is to make it only legal for a mobster run government to have all the guns.
Who do you think elects the government? You can't have it both ways. Either you are a beacon of international freedom with a politically representative government or you are ruled by shady corporate gangsters.
The first amendment acknowledges my right to recognize a higher authority than this entity that claims to be the state.
My faith isn't in government. My faith isn't in politics. I do however, respect the law of the land. I respect the law of the land because it acknowledges and respects my rights and authorities as a child of God. I answer to a higher power than the entity that claims to be the state. The constitutional law of this land does not conflict with this, for "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".
The law of the land also makes it very clear that it is necessary for the security of a free state that people be allowed to keep and bear arms. It is very clear to me that this is the means of regulating the militia. For the people to give up their right to bear arms is the same as the people consenting to slavery.
"Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God!"
Voters elect the entity that claims to be the government. Shady corporate gangsters are always going to think they run things. A politically representative government can still lead to tyranny.
It takes a certain type of personality to be a politician, you know. Not everyone is going to vote. It is probably better that way. Politics is not always the most certain thing.
We all really want the republic though, I'm sure. Even those who don't realize it. Rule by law. We cannot budge on the bill of rights. This is the law that overrides all the other laws. The people who are trying to weaken the bill of rights are UP TO NO GOOD. We all don't really want the democracy, that is rule by majority. Really, it is mob rule. The democratic party, true to form, is run by gangsters. Don't feel too bad if you get schmucked by a gangster, they are called wise guys for a reason. Most of the information that people get about conservatives in America comes from these gangsters. Of course, no one who blindly buys into all that ever seems to consider it for a moment.
Then you get the long history of government programs such as COINTELPROS and Project Mockingbird, and people STILL don't consider it for a moment... Then the head of Amazon Jeff Bezos gets 600 million from the CIA after buying the Washington Post. No, the government still doesn't do any of this stuff, not anymore, no siree.
Some illuminati business going on here, that's for sure. Things aren't always as they seem.
Gun violence in the United States is a major national concern that results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).
The 70,000 reference you refer to makes no claims of the criminals that have guns nor does it state nonfatal drive by shootings.
By the way my guns have never endangered me at anytime but i will continue to arm myself to protect me,my family and my property.
Yet a fair proportion of idiots do indeed have access to guns ; the amount of injury caused by guns yearly is truly staggering in the U S and the problem remains that guns are the cause of 30;000 deaths annually and 70, 000 injuries
Read below of the idiots who leave unlocked loaded guns within reach of children
Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age. Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.
Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway reported in a 2001 study that regardless of age, people are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.
A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.
the problem remains that guns are the cause of 30;000 deaths annually and 70, 000 injuries
Yes that’s a problem. As stated it is primarily a problem of criminal gun possession and suicide. Which means it has nothing to do with me nor with the vast majority of legal gun owners.as for the rest of your post; gun advocates are not running around suggesting irresponsible gun ownership and storage, quite the opposite. Unintentional firearm related deaths among youths are rare, as you said 1300 over 5 years. That’s in a nation of over 300 million. Compare that to the 4300 annual juvenile deaths from alcohol and you will see why our focus is elsewhere.
You know why we hang onto our alcohol even though it kills so many people? Because we like it. The only reason we talk about guns so much and not alcohol is because everyone like alcohol, but only we like guns.
And we do like them, which is why they aren’t going anywhere. With 4 in 10 men and 2 in 10 women reporting gun ownership, guns aren’t going anywhere. That’s a substantial block that feels strongly enough about it to actually own one.
The political power of the NRA isn’t in their donations, it’s in their massive membership. Not only would banning guns be wildly unpopular, it would be illegal (unconstitutional). The Amendment process will never happen because we like our guns. Our guns which kill far less than our alcohol which we also like.
You know why else guns can’t go away? Because we have as many guns as we have people. Most people hate heroin, meth, crack, and cocaine. We’ve put a full ban on them but they are readily accessible on the corner. And the men selling them on the corner are also the men killing each other with guns. Now if we gave guns the same legal status as heroin, do you really suppose the heroin dealer would loose access to either? No.
Guns are dangerous, but the odds of dying from non-assaultive firearm discharge over ones life is 1/6905. That’s an average across the US. You’re more likely to die from a fall, or from an accidental prescription drug overdose.
The US has a crime problem, not a gun problem. A gun ban is as impossible as it is undesired. But for the vast majority of us, it doesn’t matter. Even if we own guns it doesn’t matter. There are actual dangers to worry about.
Side note: If a risk is increased by 9 times up from .000001, no one cares, nor should they. Also, I have to wonder how your source determined which states are likely to have people store their guns irresponsibly. Sounds questionable.
If criminal gun possession is the biggest problem and a gun ban was introduced in the U S what do you think would happen ?
Criminals would have guns and ordinary citizens would not so what ?
No citizens over here have guns yet most criminal gangs do and who do they use them on fellow criminals ; imagine if we armed our citizens because criminals had guns
If one looks at the figures below they’re truly horrendous 1. 4 million deaths since 1968 ,( see below ) people outside the U S talk about guns because they cannot comprehend the American mindset when it comes to that issue , in fairness if one was born and raised in America no doubt they would hold similar views .
Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011, equivalent to a top 10 largest U.S. city in 2016, falling between the populations of San Antonio and Dallas, Texas.[12]
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed by guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed by guns.In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.
No I disagree , the U S most definitely has a gun problem it’s so easy just to brush it all away and claim it’s a crime problem , regards accidental deaths a piece below from .....Armed with reason .......
A key observation noted by Hedeboe and his colleagues is that injuries are inflicted by whatever object is most near. However, when a gun is available, impromptu arguments escalate quickly, leading to a lethal injury. FBI data from 1981, for example, found that 2/3rds of deaths involving arguments were a result of guns. These deaths would have been replaced by non-fatal injuries had the guns not been present.
This is the reason that the United States leads other developed countries when it comes to fatal injury rates:
Image from New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy Secretariat
In another study, David Hemenway found that unintentional firearm deaths in the U.S. are five times higher than any other high-income country. Among the 23 countries compared, 87% of all firearm deaths of children under the age of 15 occurred in America. In 1995, 5285 U.S. children were killed by a firearm, compared with 57 in Germany and 0 in Japan.
The risk of accidental firearm deaths is also not shared equally among the population: in low-income areas, the likelihood of unintentional injury is 10 times higher than in high-income areas. Rates are particularly high among Native Americans, White teenagers, and African Americans age 15-34.
Remember, these are accidental firearm deaths, and they happen far more often than accidental deaths from any other weapon. According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in 2010, 606 people were killed by unintentional firearm injuries. By contrast, the next highest category for unintentional deaths by weapon was knives (or other sharp objects) which killed 105 people in 2010. Despite the fact that there are many more knives in the United States than guns, guns are responsible for five times as many accidents. The reason being, of course, that accidents caused by guns are more lethal than accidents by any other weapon.
In the case of unintentional injury, then, the evidence is clear that guns do kill people.
A ban on guns would be effective when it comes to the ordinary citizen of the U S if implemented with harsh penalties for non compliance ,and so what if criminals have illegal access to guns that will always be the case anywhere .
If guns were not in everyday use in the U S how many lives do you think would have been saved in the last 50 odd years ?
Why do you carry a gun what’s your reasoning behind it ?
Finally regards a ban it’s being very effective in Australia and the other countries mentioned in this piece
There are a number of problems with your post. First, when you refer to “children”, you should clarify. What you mean is people age 19 and under. And those numbers from 1995 are not only accidental gun deaths, it’s all gun deaths (yes, I checked this data). Street gangs get children involved as young as 10. Meaning those numbers are, as I have been claiming, mostly derived from already banned criminal activity, not accidents.
Going back to the 60’s in order to get a high death count makes any death toll for anything sound bad. But it comes across as mere rhetoric. Especially when death tolls and crime rates have been dropping since the 90’s even as gun laws have become looser. (There has been a recent spike in crime following recent social movements that targets law enforcement).
Picking and choosing countries to compare the US to does not make for good analysis. A country should be compared to itself, or ranked against the world. Anything else is too prone to bias. Speaking of bias, does your source include Switzerland; a country with low crime and high gun ownership?
I don’t like how muddled the data gets on gun stats, particularly between accidental and intentional gun death, but it is a very politicized topic. Nonetheless I was able to find a CDC stat that says between 2005 and 2010, 3,800 people died from unintentional shootings. That’s an average of 760 per year. Like I said, it’s very low.
Since we like guns and most gun deaths are between criminals, the question isn’t why keep guns, but why not. Having a gun in my house, properly stored, is no great danger. A pool would be more hazardous to children. If the issue is other countries confusion over US affinity for a product that causes preventable death, consider the following.
Alcohol kills 4% of the world population annually. It’s the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in the US.
According to the WHO, Ireland drinks more alcohol than anybody. Death by alcohol is at 1.55 pet 100,000 in Ireland. Compare that to the .05 deaths per 100,000 in Saudi Arabia and you’ll find the Irish are killing themselves with legal booze at a rate 31 times greater than in dry Saudi Arabia.
Should Ireland ban alcohol? No. You guys like alcohol. Alcohol is part of your culture. And besides, Americans drink less but have a higher alcohol related death rate than Ireland, which indicates other cultural factors. This is comparable to the gun toting Swiss who still have low crime rates.
No, we do not have a gun problem. Banning guns would be illegal, untenable, and, most importantly, undesired. Since responsible gun ownership has such a negligible impact on the risk to the owner(almost nill for the truly responsible), the question for the gun enthusiast remains, why not?
When I talk about children surely clarification isn’t necessary , I’m not taking about street gangs and criminal activities I’m talking about accidental gun deaths nearly 6,000 children a year receive medical attention for gun injuries and 1,300 die annually from gun related injuries
I don’t have to go back to the 60’ s to get a “ high death “ count and if you do not think the steady 30 ,000 gun deaths a year is a “ high death count “ that’s pretty scary to say the least ; also it’s amazing you think this is actually whats making the figures look bad .
Ok I won’t pick and choose countries for comparison how does that make the figures look to you ? More palatable now are they ?
Now you use the term “ bias “ so you find my argument unfair merely for pointing out where gun bans have been effective .
This exchange is really going nowhere as stats and citations can be made for each side of the argument ; I’ve never yet had an exchange with an American on this issue where we came to an understanding on the issue as even though we share a language we are culturally miles apart
Your stats on Irish drinking habits made me smile as I recently read we have now fallen to a disgraceful 20 Th position in the international boozing tables , my father must be turning in his grave , your list has us back at no 1 national pride is restored at this news
Your stat seem to contradict my CDC stat that says between 2005 and 2010, 3,800 people died from unintentional shootings. Studies can differ, but they shouldn’t differ wildly.
I hope my analogy to alcohol made sense. You will not come to a mutual agreement with a Saudi concerning alcohol. Alcohol is a far greater danger with far less practical function than firearms. This is not an argument against alcohol. Rather it is to illustrate how a group of people could be baffled by another groups apparently unreasonable willfull adoption of a dangerous product.
You keep drinking. I’ll keep packing (though not while drinking). Neither behavior is a significant danger to the individual who is responsibly engaged.
That’s stats for you , and if they differ wildly one has to ask why ?
I assume it’s because the subject is sensitive and everyone has an opinion (most often opposing gun ownership). Even the CDC source I quoted wasnt straightforward data. It was over a 5 year period (which is obviously a higher number than annual).
What is the “ practical function “ of a firearm other than to kill or maim ?
Maiming is not an appropriate function for a lethal weapon. Other than that, it seems the answer is in the question.
Personal protection weapons offer their owners the opportunity to protect themselves and their family in their home and other more public places.
Your argument appears to be based on the the presupposed premise that the PPW holder is already a target and there would little or no chance the weapon being of any use once the assassin had taken his/her shot.
That is a reasonable assumption in such a scenario, but the holder of a legally licensed weapon would have a vestige of a chance of denying the assassin the opportunity taking the final death shot if the first shot missed or was not fatal.
When a potential life threatening situation is detected the gun holder can prepare to defend themselves or, non menacingly display the firearm.
This would discourage most criminals and send them off to find an easier target.
No, weapons offer a remote chance (you said it) to "shoot first" to a target who, in most cases, was willing to shoot in the first place because he felt threatened by the gun of the owner.
Any PPW holder is perceived as a threat and target by other PPW holders, PPW owners own weapons having their targets in mind since the moment they buy a weapon, those targets are other PPW owners! It is not an assumption
Guns do not discourage criminals, they encourage them to get more and more powerful guns. Because they think guns protect them, that's how criminals think
"the presupposed premise that the PPW holder is already a target and there would little or no chance the weapon being of any use once the assassin had taken his/her shot."
How is that a "presupposed premise"????? Please do explain how can a gun stop a bullet that's already on its way. And, yes, people with guns are mostly already targeted. Criminals with guns got the guns in the first place due to the stupid belief that they would be "protecting themselves" against other people with guns. The original idea inside the criminal mind to buy a gun is to use it again anyone else tryin' to shoot at them.
"vestige of a chance"... precisely
"This would discourage most criminals and send them off to find an easier target."
No, gun threat towards criminals is what encourage them to get guns, because the criminal mind believes in the "protection" of guns.
My assumption that the assassin's intended victim was already a predetermined target was based on the perfectly reasonable premise that the bullet was speeding towards it's quarry for a reason rather than at random.
Unless there is a direct hit there is no way a holstered firearm could stop a bullet.
As someone who carried a legally licensed personal protection weapon for many years due to a 'standing death threat' from the so called Irish Republican Army my point was that in the event of the assassin's bullet missing or failing to disable the target sufficiently so as to render them wholly ineffective, then the armed person would possibly be able to return fire and therefore have a chance of surviving the murder bid.
Had the filth gone out to fulfill their threat to kill me, then, even with the P.P.W., I'd have had little chance of surviving.
Without the firearm I'd have had absolutely no chance whatsoever.
If your argument was carried out to its natural conclusion then only the bad guys would have guns.
Tell it to people who have protected themselves, property, or loved ones with a gun.
If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at.
This is a blind claim in the dark, and no evidence supports this claim. It doesn't logically follow that criminals look for victims that can shoot back.
Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet
In theory, the bullet hits me. I or someone else shoots the shooter. He shoots no one else.
In theory, it'd take a century to even get close to rounding up all of the existing guns.
You literally just made this up. In order to know how long it would take to round up the existing guns, you would need to know both the number of guns and the rate at which those guns are handed over and/or procured once they are illegalised. Firstly, guns have not been illegalised in the United States. Secondly, if they had been, you would then have no idea how many guns still existed in society because people would no longer declare them.
Why don't you use another of your thirty accounts to see if you have better success against the law of reason, you offensively stupid bastard?
"I don't know any person who has, not one single... This looks like a blind claim from yourself... do you have any statistics?"
It's rather obvious that some people would have successfully used a gun for the purposes of self defense but here, browse the 1422 verified cases on this site (Source 1). This is by no means a complete list.
Well 1,422 of "successful defense" cases is a pretty laughable number compared to the 15,000 deaths from gun violence only in 2017. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Moreover, those 1422 cases are (I assume) a compilation from several years, so the actual rate per year must be even lower than that. Now I hope you understand that in those 1,422 cases someone lost the confrontation, meaning those 1,422 losers were gun owners who got injured for owning and using a gun.
Also, the number of UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTING injuries for 2017 was 1,995 ... I mean unintentional injuries/deaths are even higher than the number of "successful defense" cases... The statistics do not support the argument that guns are protecting people. Most people involved in gun shootings still end up dead or injured.
Most people who end up in shootings are not legal gun owners. Legal gun owners, who actually use their guns, are hunters, ranchers, and farmers. Whether their rifle protects them or not, it protects their stock from predators and it puts food on their table. Some legal gun owners carry for protection. But they are very very rarely involved in a shooting.
Most people involved in shootings are felons who are already banned from having a gun. They are more likely to be involved in a shooting because they intend to do harm with their illegal gun. But that’s not most legal gun owners.
The fact is that I am not likely to be shot on any given day. Having a gun that no one knows about won’t change how others behave toward me, meaning I am still not likely to be shot.
But in the unlikely event someone does decide to shoot at me, I can shoot at them. Though I can’t stop the rounds already fired, I can prevent the next rounds yet to be fired, and in that way I can protect myself...obviously.
Well 1,422 of "successful defense" cases is a pretty laughable number compared to the 15,000 deaths from gun violence only in 2017. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Moreover, those 1422 cases are (I assume) a compilation from several years, so the actual rate per year must be even lower than that. Now I hope you understand that in those 1,422 cases someone lost the confrontation, meaning those 1,422 losers were gun owners who got injured for owning and using a gun.
Also, the number of UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTING injuries for 2017 was 1,995 ... I mean unintentional injuries/deaths are even higher than the number of "successful defense" cases... The statistics do not support the argument that guns are protecting people. Most people involved in gun shootings still end up dead or injured.
"Well 1,422 of "successful defense" cases is a pretty laughable number compared to the 15,000 deaths from gun violence only in 2017."
As I said before, it isn't a complete list, it's a collection of verified anecdotes in response to your statement that you don't know of any people who have defended themselves or their property with a gun. Now you do.
"Moreover, those 1422 cases are (I assume) a compilation from several years"
Once again, I said clearly that it was not an extensive list, it is just a few verified anecdotes. Since you asked, check out the statistics yourself (Source 1).
It's rather obvious that some people would have successfully used a gun for the purposes of self defense
You need to get this idiotic fallacy out of your head that killing people is a form of defence. If it were true, then there would be no such thing as manslaughter or murder.
So if you shoot someone that is imminently about to kill you then you have not defended yourself?
Firstly, it is telling that you have selected the one, solitary set of circumstances where shooting someone could ever be construed as a means of defence. Of all the millions of potential hazards in the world a gun will protect you from one of them, which, frankly, makes it a shit form of defence.
Secondly, when you use a gun in the manner described you are using it to attack the person you believe is trying to kill you. You can never enter his mind to be sure of course, so your use of attack is based entirely on your own arbitrary interpretation of the situation. Since defence means the precise opposite of attack, then inflicting serious damage to anybody, regardless of what you believe their intentions are, is still attack. We do not define our own actions based on the actions of other people. If that were true I could beat my wife and argue I was defending myself against the damaging psychological effects of her constant nagging. I could invade Iraq and argue I was defending America from an imminent attack. The point is, once you cross that line and start calling attack defence, you eventually end up in cloud cuckoo land.
"Firstly, it is telling that you have selected the one, solitary set of circumstances where shooting someone could ever be construed as a means of defence."
I see, so using guns in the same sentence as self-defense cannot be said to be an "egregious abuse of logic".
"Secondly, when you use a gun in the manner described you are using it to attack the person you believe is trying to kill you. You can never enter his mind to be sure of course, so your use of attack is based entirely on your own arbitrary interpretation of the situation."
If there was no credible threat; in other words if you didn't have good reason to believe your life or property was in danger then the law doesn't view it as self defense and neither do I.
"Since defence means the precise opposite of attack, then inflicting serious damage to anybody, regardless of what you believe their intentions are, is still attack."
You've already conceded that offensive action can serve the purposes of self-defense. This is also why martial arts classes are often called "self-defense" classes.
"We do not define our own actions based on the actions of other people."
The intent of our actions defines them. Actions taken to avoid immediate harm are defensive in nature.
"If that were true I could beat my wife and argue I was defending myself against the damaging psychological effects of her constant nagging."
Tell it to people who have protected themselves, property, or loved ones with a gun.
Shut up bronto. Go make the argument that guns protect you to the millions of families which have lost loved ones because of gun violence.
This is a blind claim in the dark
It's basic common sense, dopey. You are more likely to use a gun if you have one, and therefore you are more likely to see return fire. If the point of owning a gun is that you can "protect" yourself from dangerous situations as you claim, then this very fact means you are more likely to enter a dangerous situation with confidence rather than caution.
Shut up bronto. Go make the argument that guns protect you to the millions of families which have lost loved ones because of gun violence...
...that is caused by gangs, which is caused by illegal immigration. And of course, outside of the military, millions of people haven't been killed by gun violence. And you aren't promoting disarming the military.
It's hard to say exactly where the statistics go wrong here, since they aren't cited, but every study I've seen has failed to establish a causal relationship by controlling for relevant variables like firearms safety training, etc. If you don't know how to use your gun, aren't prepared to use lethal force, etc. then of course not having a gun won't help you (and will probably put you at more risk). But people who know how to use a gun and are prepared to use lethal force to protect themselves or others can and have done so.
Now, you want to point to the consistently strong correlations between per capita gun ownership and per capita gun violence then we can talk. But that's a question of national policy practices and outcomes, not of the personal choice of ownership and personal practice of self-protection.
What about in a situation where someone breaks into your house
Killing someone for entering a part of the world you say he isn't allowed to be in is not morally acceptable and frankly there is something wrong with you if you feel otherwise.
I don't see how being in a situation where self-defense is necessary is so hard to imagine. It happens to millions of people in the U.S. each year, or at least the studies suggest that it does (e.g. the one I cited earlier).
I've posted a critique of the critique of Kleck's study, in addition to supplemental studies, on our other discussion. As for house alarms not functioning, they certainly don't when you're not in your house, or if a burglar manages to disable it.
If you cannot know whether the other person is armed or what their intentions are, you seriously believe it is unreasonable to presume the worst and act accordingly? You genuinely believe you have an ethical obligation to presume the best of someone who has entered into a private space they know they have no right to be in, at risk to yourself and loved ones? I absolutely cannot fathom that.
If you cannot know whether the other person is armed or what their intentions are, you seriously believe it is unreasonable to presume the worst and act accordingly?
Yes, it is unreasonable to be paranoid if your paranoia is going to cost someone else their life. You do not have the right to act recklessly because your recklessness can have severe consequences for other people.
In the UK, we can make a reasonable assumption that the person we are arguing with is not going to be armed with a gun precisely because we have enforced a ban on guns. Hence, even if we are armed ourselves, there is less likelihood of us acting recklessly out of paranoia.
Someone who breaks into my home is there with the clear and express purpose of doing me harm. There is no other plausible reason for them having broken into my home. I have absolutely no way of knowing the exact nature or extent of harm they intend, or how capable I am of defending myself without resorting to lethal force. I do know that if I use lethal force on this person who poses an unspecified but definite threat to my well-being that that they no longer pose a threat. Now, it's possible that they the only harm they intend to do is petty property theft. You might even argue that the odds are greater that that's the case. But why should I be obliged to gamble on those odds? They initiated this, not me.
To be clear, you are defending the position that someone who knowingly breaks into a space they have no right to be in with the clear and express intention of causing some kind of harm to the residents (be it to property or person) is actively entitled to consideration from those residents as to their well-being even when this might put the residents at greater risk themselves. You consider that reasonable and I am asking you why. Lobbing around unsubstantiated allegations of paranoia and recklessness is posturing at rationality, not exercising it.
As an aside: In the US it's not paranoid to assume that someone breaking into your home is armed with a gun. I don't support the US policies that create those circumstances, but as long as those are the circumstances then being armed and prepared to use lethal force during a home invasion is rational.
Those are so implausible they border on the absurd, but let's go ahead and entertain your unlikely hypothetical conditions because it doesn't matter - I still have no idea that that's why they've broken into my home. From which the rest of my argument still stands.
It’s remarkable that over here in Europe we have something called a house alarm which makes a very loud noise if an intruder attempts to enter your home , intruders normally flee when they hear this noisy annoyance .
Most criminals take steps to ensure no one is home before trying to break into a residence. Most burglaries are in the daytime while people are working so confrontations are fairly rare. Since criminals are only after cash or valuables if they flee from an occupied house they can try again elsewhere once the adrenaline wears of
Unless of course the U S type intruder relishes the thought of confrontation and night time brea ins for the “rush”
I hope house alarms reach your shores in the next century or so
Are American burglars unique in that they want to break into the average Joes home and rob the vast wealth on display and murder and rape the residents ?
Nothing I said suggests I believe burglars are more likely to rape and murder than commit petty theft. I'm not ignorant of the statistics, and I am also perfectly aware that home alarm systems exist. I understand that in many (even most) instances I won't come to bodily harm. My argument does not require baseless and paranoid assumptions of that kind in the least.
In full agreement with the improbability that the intruder is there to rape and murder me, my argument nevertheless holds that because that could be their motive I cannot be certain that is not their motive and I have no obligation to give the intruder any benefit of the doubt at risk to my person however small that risk may be. I'm not even arguing that one should or must use lethal force, just that one isn't at fault for doing so or under any obligation to the intruder not to do so.
I have repeatedly asked why a person should be obliged in any way to assume any risk upon their person for the benefit of someone who has broken into their clearly private residence. Rather than an answer, you've supplied a series of flimsy strawmen. I hope rudimentary logic reaches your shores in the next century or so...
You say ........I hope rudimentary logic reaches your shores in the next century or so.........
Well seeing as it’s seems to have totally evaded a fair proportion of your population ( you included ) maybe it’s a case of a kettle / pot scenario here .......
Maybe in the next 50 to a 100 years that marvelous invention called the house alarm may make its way to your shores so as to give you weary Americans a rest from the constant threats faced daily from seemingly never ending hordes of rapists , murderers and assorted maniacs
I'm proud to be a Texan where the law clearly states that an intruder on your property is grounds for the use of lethal force. Aim for the center of mass and empty the chamber. A warning shot or a trunk shot could be your last mistake in life. That simple straightforward law leaves no doubt in the that split second that as a homeowner you will not be arrested or charged.
I'm proud to be a Texan where the law clearly states that an intruder on your property is grounds for the use of lethal force
Being irrational and/or violent is not something to be proud of. Consider if you were forced at gunpoint to break into another person's house. I bet you'd change your mind pretty quickly about the moral implications of shooting intruders and asking questions later.
There is no time for semantics in a life or death situation. Do you want to wait until he pulls a gun? Or maybe until he enters a childs room? I have no questions to ask a criminal in my home.
Willingness to use lethal force to protect yourself and your loved ones is not irrational. Unwillingness to do that is - on what possible grounds are you obliged to consider the well-being of any assailant over your own?
If I was forced at gunpoint to break into someone else's home (bizarre and unlikely though that is) my position wouldn't change in the least. The people living there would have every right to use lethal force on me, no matter how much I might wish they wouldn't.
I think you seriously need to consider emigrating as how do you even get through a day without someone trying to shoot you ; break into your house or trying to take your country over
I have not for one moment been in a situation where I truly thought my life is in danger. If that moment should occur, I will not hesitate. I am truly perplexed at anyone who would give the benefit of the doubt to an intruder in their home. Rob, rape, kill. Are the thoughts in their mind.
Ooooooor you could get shot or killed or raped etc. because you didn't shoot when you had the chance.
The bottom line is if you don't have guns other people still will, which gives them the power to kill you or force you to do things you wouldn't do without a gun to your head.
So again I ask you, how are you going to take the citizens guns without force? Why do you want the citizens to be disarmed so badly but never mention the government/police etc. and how are you going to stop people from producing and distributing guns and creating a black market which would in turn fund other criminal operations and put guns in the hands of criminals whilst the public is disarmed?
You are either...
A) Retarded
B) A fascist who wants a disarmed slave population while the gov and organized crime gets more and more weapons
The law is squarely on my side in this scenario. That innocent good Samaritan breaking into my home in the middle of the night is not going to have a 1/2 second of a chance.
Fear for me is when a potentially dangerous situation is out of my control. Getting t-boned was one. My first earthquake and a tiny little poodle that was vicious killer to a 8yo. Anger releases adrenalin like fear but with focus. As a kid the best reason to own is the fun of it. I have fun every single time I go shooting. Especially shooting my buddys AR. Now it is a hobby that entails skill and friendship and just plain fun. As an American, it is my right and I feel an obligation to exercise it. Also I enjoy being an expert at something.
"What about in a situation where someone breaks into your house"
Well, that's why I lock my house, it's a lot easier, cheaper and safer... and it really really works, no one has ever ever broken into my house because it is locked you know?
"or one where someone is approaching you with a knife"
Well, again, that has not happened either...not ever, because, you know it's not the 1800's. But, in a hypothetical case, I would first run towards a crowd of people, that would most likely persuade him from doing anything. if not, I would give him my wallet and cell phone, I seriously doubt he was there just to kill me... If that doesn't work I would practice my best kung fu on him.. but I still don't feel I need to be carrying a gun with me all the time just in case this very unlikely scenario happened.
There's this crime category called B&E;, ever heard of it? It's where people break locks and enter the property. Just because no one has ever broken into your house doesn't mean they won't, and locking up is a deterrent but not a guarantee. You might be comfortable with that precaution, but what actually makes your practice more reasonable?
Robberies and assaults at knife point, also a thing. Statistically unlikely to happen? Sure. You're fine with relying on placation or kung fu? Fine. But, again, what actually makes your standard so much more reasonable than someone who wants to be armed because that's how they prepare for the unlikely?
The easy cheap way is not appropriate for defending your life and your family. Being unprepared for unlikely scenarios probably is a accurate description for countless murder victims final moments alive.
Locking a house is not only cheap and easy, it is extremely efficient, much more than any gun. You seem to think the Hollywood way: if hold a gun you'll win because you're the "good guy". But no, using a gun is taking your chances, it's not certain you'll hit the target, and once you fired you'll get a fire response, with higher probabilities than if you had never shot in the first place. You could die in the gunfight, and therefore leave your family unprotected, your gun did not resolve anything then. if you really think you live in the old wild west you and your family should be wearing bulletproof vests not guns. Guns will attract bullets, the vests will atually stop them.
I have no real expectation of burglary in my neighborhood has at least 3 camouflaged trucks and the neighbor's I know have at least a rifle. That being said, criminals are not making good choices. I will never surrender my gun and hope for a happy ending.
The easy cheap way is not appropriate for defending your life and your family.
You keep loading your language to paint yourself as the victim in a situation where you intend to end somebody else's life. It's silly. Have you ever considered that the other guy might have brought a gun precisely to "defend" himself from your own Texas blood lust? You are defending the very same law which puts a gun in the hands of an intruder and endangers your family in the first place. Would you still be so pro-gun if an intruder broke in while you were sleeping and shot your family to death?
No situation would ever change the fact that I will protect myself, my loved ones and my property within the limits of the law if a threat arises. I simply can't fathom the mentality of someone who does not agree 100%.
No situation would ever change the fact that I will protect myself, my loved ones and my property within the limits of the law if a threat arises.
Buddy, get real. If an armed intruder breaks in and you start waving a gun around the first thing he's going to look to do is put a gun to the head of your wife or child. Far from keeping them safe, your mentality puts them in great danger.
I have never in my life seen a person wave a gun around. My mentality in that situation would be a calm assertive anger for one second. After that, I can't say. And likely never will. Can you explain what you would feel in a similar situation? My guess is hopeless dread.
Which is precisely why you shoot an intruder right away. Don’t waive your gun around. Don’t shout warnings. Just shoot the person who has credibly placed you and your family in danger.
There is a way for a burglar to avoid being shot. Don’t burglarize people.
"Well, that's why I lock my house, it's a lot easier, cheaper and safer... and it really really works, no one has ever ever broken into my house because it is locked you know?"
So the crime of breaking and entering never occurs?
"Well, again, that has not happened either...not ever, because, you know it's not the 1800's. But, in a hypothetical case, I would first run towards a crowd of people, that would most likely persuade him from doing anything. if not, I would give him my wallet and cell phone, I seriously doubt he was there just to kill me."
It's happened to me twice but then again I live in the U.K. where we banned guns and now all the criminals just use knives. What if it happens in a dark alleyway or somewhere else that you cannot escape from (such as your room). Maybe he would just want to mug you (you should still have the means to to defend your property) but perhaps he wants to kidnap and/or rape you. Without a weapon you are completely at his mercy.
"If that doesn't work I would practice my best kung fu on him."
Look, maybe you are a kung-fu master but even for a master it is very dangerous to fight somebody with a knife. This doesn't even take into account that your attacker could simply have a gun instead.
"but I still don't feel I need to be carrying a gun with me all the time just in case this very unlikely scenario happened."
That's fine, but some people live in neighborhoods where these situations occur often (I used to). In addition, simply because you don't want the means to defend yourself doesn't mean you should take it away from others.
Burglars almost always carry some type of offensive weapon so in the event of an intruder approaching you in your home it would be very prudent to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.
If the housebreaker is retreating then a warning shot to the back of the head should suffice.
I'm totally for open carry, don't get me wrong... But it is definitely more polite to conceal a firearm. It is good to think of the nerves of other people. Not everyone is a civilized Texan, you know.
Guns don't protect anyone, they endanger their owners
Right? I mean cops have been complaining for years about having to carry a gun. Their already dangerous job is made worse by the gun they carry that doesn’t even protect them. What’s weird is how almost all cops extend this hazard to their off time by carrying a gun while not at work...
If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at.
Please explain how carrying a firearm makes me a more desirable target than someone who can't shoot back at an attacker, especially if my weapon is concealed.
Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet.
True. They might also miss. They might also hit someone else. They also might be armed with something other than a gun. If I can shoot back, I can prevent further carnage. If it's an active shooter, that might mean a body count of two or three instead of a body count of ten or more. Also note, the capability to shoot back is often what's important. Most people who want to start trouble are going to do it somewhere else if you wave a gun in their face.
Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests?
Yes, but there are two inherent problems with that. One- I don't know if you've ever put on a bulletproof vest, but they're heavy, and bulky, and impractical. Definitely something you don't want to be wearing every time you go out. Second, if you get shot once and your vest takes it, that's definitely better than taking a bullet in major organs. But if you can't shoot back and eliminate the threat, now what? Either they adjust their aim and shoot you in the head, or they just hit you in the vest again, because most vests are pretty much worthless after the first shot.
Why do people believe guns will protect them?
Because they do. There are no concrete numbers on this, but defensive uses of firearms are estimated to occur between 50,000 (by the VPA, an anti- gun organization) to 2 million (by the NRA) times per year in the United States.
I ask you to consider: There are people in this world that want to rape you. There are people who want to rob and kill you. Some of them don't even need a reason. If you ever encounter one of these people, what is your actual plan to get out of this situation alive? And is it realistic? Because as far as I can see, your best chance is to shoot back.
I'm going to have to go with the classic, it absolutely depends on the owner. If they are an idiot and don't practice gun safety then they are a danger to themselves and others. If they are responsible and handle their gun with care then it's good for protections. But it depends on the user.
