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.
Tasers are less likely to seriously injure innocent citizens or the police officer handling the weapon.
A taser is an additional tactical option that allows officers to manage situations where violence is threatened or likely from a safe distance. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed, the mere threat of it's use has been enough to bring violent or potentially violent situations to a safe and peaceful resolution.
Giving police officers guns sends the wrong message to the community, such as people need to use guns in order to be safe and to protect themselves.
Tasers are less likely to seriously injure innocent citizens or the police officer handling the weapon.
A taser is an additional tactical option that allows officers to manage situations where violence is threatened or likely from a safe distance. In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed, the mere threat of it's use has been enough to bring violent or potentially violent situations to a safe and peaceful resolution.
Giving police officers guns sends the wrong message to the community, such as people need to use guns in order to be safe and to protect themselves.
I agree and you provided a strong argument to support your view. The gun industry is like the tobacco industry used to be. Everybody knows guns are harmful just like they knew cigarettes were harmful. The problem is that capitalism has turned a lot of people into greedy, narcissistic monsters who are prepared to say and/or do anything to keep making money. The deaths are just collateral damage to them.
What will the police do when faced with a criminal with a gun?
In the vast majority of cases where a taser is deployed, the mere threat of it's use has been enough to bring violent or potentially violent situations to a safe and peaceful resolution.
The same is true for guns.
Giving police officers guns sends the wrong message to the community, such as people need to use guns in order to be safe and to protect themselves.
What will the police do when faced with a criminal with a gun?
Equally, if one uses that as justification for police owning firearms it leads to an infinite regression where eventually every criminal must have a firearm to protect themselves from the police. Hence, it is a considerably more reasonable plan for police to work to disarm criminals rather than arm themselves (or civilians).
The same is true for guns.
But this now becomes irrelevant since you have agreed with his point that tasers have the same effect. Hence, there is nothing gained by using guns. You just add extra risk for little extra benefit.
You do need guns to defend against guns.
Then obviously the logical solution is to remove guns from society, not to proliferate them. Amazing that you seemingly cannot see that.
"Then obviously the logical solution is to remove guns from society, not to proliferate them. Amazing that you seemingly cannot see that."
You can't just remove guns from society. Just like you can't just get rid of illegal drugs. People will find ways to get them and use them. There will always be illegal arms dealers and gangs out there that will have guns always at the ready. Amazing that you seemingly cannot see that.
Equally, if one uses that as justification for police owning firearms it leads to an infinite regression where eventually every criminal must have a firearm to protect themselves from the police.
How so? Do we as a society want criminals to stop police or do we want police to stop criminals?
Hence, it is a considerably more reasonable plan for police to work to disarm criminals rather than arm themselves (or civilians).
How are you going to do that, given that criminals by definition won't follow a law that makes guns illegal? Has the war on drugs been successful?
But this now becomes irrelevant since you have agreed with his point that tasers have the same effect. Hence, there is nothing gained by using guns. You just add extra risk for little extra benefit.
Only in the case that the person you are arresting has no weapon, and is within the shorter taser range. Also, the person would be somewhat less afraid of a taser than a gun. However, I can concede that in cases where the person is unarmed it's an acceptable substitute.
Then obviously the logical solution is to remove guns from society, not to proliferate them. Amazing that you seemingly cannot see that.
Not possible, see my earlier point on the war on drugs. Even if it was, you completely ignore the fact that studies suggest 2 million defensive gun uses by civilians alone per year (1,2) compared with 19k homicides and 500 accidental discharges (3).
Because common sense stipulates that criminals do not want to be shot by police.
Do we as a society want criminals to stop police or do we want police to stop criminals?
Guns are completely irrelevant to your question, which appears to be based entirely on your own demonstrably false assumption that police need guns to stop criminals. The UK police force arrests plenty of criminals and it does not carry guns. I believe the correct terminology for your fallacy is "false dichotomy", since you are implying that without guns police are unable to stop criminals.
How are you going to do that, given that criminals by definition won't follow a law that makes guns illegal?
On the contrary, this is another false assumption. Criminals are more than happy to comply with gun laws when failure to do so gives them more prison time than the actual offence they are guilty of committing. A blanket five year prison sentence for anybody caught in possession of a firearm has been extremely effective in dissuading criminals from carrying guns.
Forgive me but I feel this conversation is going nowhere. You are using generic fallacies I have refuted and debunked hundreds of times previously and frankly it is boring reading your banal repetition of NRA arguments.
Because common sense stipulates that criminals do not want to be shot by police.
If we as a society want police to stop criminals and not the other way round then it doesn't make sense to argue that criminals need guns to defend themselves from police.
The UK police force arrests plenty of criminals and it does not carry guns.
Actually, UK police do carry guns, just not all officers at all times.
you are implying that without guns police are unable to stop criminals.
They are unable to stop criminals with guns that refuse to surrender.
Criminals are more than happy to comply with gun laws when failure to do so gives them more prison time than the actual offence they are guilty of committing.
So are there are no criminals with guns in the UK?
If we as a society want police to stop criminals and not the other way round then it doesn't make sense to argue that criminals need guns to defend themselves from police.
It makes perfect sense because you are talking about arming the police force you blathering halfwit. What do you suppose would be the "sensible" way for criminals to react to that? Do you think they are going to arm themselves with crayons and colouring pens?
Actually, UK police do carry guns
No, they do not. There are specialist armed units but the general police force does not carry guns. You do not understand what you are talking about so shut up.
They are unable to stop criminals with guns
Which you have forced the criminal to carry by arming the police force you IDIOT.
This is impossible because you're like, really stupid.
Clearly it is possible. Dozens of countries have banned guns. You are just being stupid.
see my earlier point on the war on drugs.
That is not a "point". That is you trying to compare two different things and pretend they are the same. Having the right to smoke weed isn't the same as having the right to shoot other people and neither are they viewed the same way by any intelligent member of society.
Your links are ornamental, so I'm not even going to bother acknowledging you have posted them. They do not support anything you have written.
Clearly it is possible. Dozens of countries have banned guns. You are just being stupid.
How so when there are still guns in those countries?
That is you trying to compare two different things and pretend they are the same. Having the right to smoke weed isn't the same as having the right to shoot other people and neither are they viewed the same way by any intelligent member of society.
First of all, my point was that you can never get rid of something entirely by criminalizing it. Secondly, the ability to defend oneself is arguably more important than the ability to smoke weed. Thirdly, nobody in any country has the right to just shoot other people.
Your links are ornamental, so I'm not even going to bother acknowledging you have posted them. They do not support anything you have written.
They suggest that guns can be used to prevent crime, not just cause it, and in fact that they are used far more for the former than the latter.
How so when there are still guns in those countries?
Because it is OBVIOUSLY a fallacy to pretend gun laws are ineffective simply because they cannot rid the country of every single gun. If gun laws reduce the amount of guns in circulation then those laws are effective. Your horrendously stupid diatribe translates to declaring murder laws a failure because murders still happen. Frankly, you are just being tediously stupid.
First of all, my point was that you can never get rid of something entirely by criminalizing it.
That clearly isn't a point, because otherwise why should we criminalise anything? Why criminalise rape? I mean, we'll never get rid of it entirely so we might as well legalise it right?
Or no. Perhaps you're just a moron. I waver toward the latter.
Okay but now imagine if a shooter came in and started shooting, would the police officer just take out his pity taser? Children get scared because they don't understand something, which is then our job to paint the better picture as many Police officers have done various of brave things. Unfortunately, the only stories children hear is how the cop shot someone PERIOD. The media is legit messing up our children, to the point they are now trusting more in gangs then cops.
Okay but now imagine if a shooter came in and started shooting, would the police officer just take out his pity taser? Children get scared because they don't understand something,
You are a literal imbecile who is incapable of understanding one simple fact. Your aim is to stop the mass shooter getting a gun and killing kids. Your aim is not to arm everybody else in the school in case a mass shooter comes in and starts killing kids. That's literally fucking retarded.
Our aim is to do our best to prevent it. Now if someone is really committed into a mass shooting, then they WILL get a gun no matter what. Our argument is if Officers should carry a gun or not and i say they should because no taser is going to stop someone with a Lethal FIREARM. You simply just got your feelings hurt. You are legit missing the whole point of this argument.
And, to clarify, do you believe that the best way to prevent it is by selling guns to mass shooters?
Now if someone is really committed into a mass shooting, then they WILL get a gun no matter what.
No pal, you have it backwards. If you want to kill a lot of people and you live in a country where you can buy guns like candy, then obviously a gun is going to be your first choice of weapon. If you don't live in one of those countries, you will probably try a different method, since obtaining a gun will be too difficult.
In sum, your argument appears to be that we can't ban guns because the guns will stop us.
Our argument is if Officers should carry a gun or not and i say they should because no taser is going to stop someone with a Lethal FIREARM.
But they only have a lethal firearm in the first place because you insist on selling lethal firearms to strangers legally. Hence, your reasoning is completely circular. The police officer would not need a gun if you made an effort to fix your gun problem, but you don't want to do that because you're an idiot. You would sooner make the problem worse by arming all the police, which subsequently forces all the criminals to also arm themselves to protect themselves from the police.
The level of retardation in your country is honestly mindblowing.
Tasers are not as effective as guns at stopping a threat. When conditions are suitable for a taser, that's good. But often tasers are not a suitable or realistic option. A lethal force option is very often necessary to stop a lethal force threat.
Ordinary policeman (transit police for example) do not need guns. Police who are called out to deal with dangerous situations should bring a gun but police do not need to routinely carry guns. Police should definitely have access to guns but should not carry them as in the majority of situations police do not even need to pull out a taser.
In the majority of situations ordinary police officers do not need a gun, that’s true. But they rarely know when they will need a gun, which most often happens while on routine patrol. It’s not predictable. If they do not routinely carry a gun, they will not have it when they need it. In the US, regular officers absolutely should routinely carry, which is why they do.
I prefer my police unarmed which they are where I live , more violent societies have their own rational for armed police forces I don’t think the use of tasers over guns will ever be fully implemented in these societies as it seems to be a cultural thing
Now there's the typical leftist gun hater who would never dare stand in front of a criminal with a taser, while the criminal has a gun! CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET ILLEGAL GUNS!
Until you are ready to walk the talk, GET REAL YOU GUN HATING JOKE!
A leftist? I’ve no political affiliations. Yes I do detest guns I like peaceful societies where I do not have to go about my business armed to the teeth
who would never dare stand in front of a criminal with a taser, while the criminal has a gun!
I’ve never been attacked by a gun wielding criminal our police do not (mostly) carry guns either I guess that makes us all “leftists”
CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO GET ILLEGAL GUNS!
Yes sure , the giveaway there was criminals as that’s what criminals do , guess who criminals kill over here? Other criminals
Until you are ready to walk the talk, GET REAL YOU GUN HATING JOKE!
Yeah I still hate guns I will let you in your ultra violent society carry on murdering and maiming each other see if I care
You are suggesting that people trying to protect our guns rights do not like peaceful societies? I guess we all want our children shot on the streets.
That is a ludicrous assumption.
Guess what, I have never seen a crime where I live here in America. I have never seen a gun brandished by anyone in public, yet we have the freedom to carry guns all we want.
Now ask yourself where you get your programmed notions that America is an ultra violent society? From the Liberal media conditioning you to believe we have a huge gun problem.
Liberals want to take our guns one step at a time as they did in England. They will deny it until the day they make the final restriction.
The big Liberal cities are where the vast majority of gun crimes happen. It's a cultural problem where most broken families gather to collect on the easy welfare.
These children from all the broken homes join gangs to feel like they are part of some semblance of a family, and there in lies the problem with gun violence. Don't blame the weapon of choice, blame the culture that creates killers.
If there were no guns, gangs would use bombs, knives, trucks, etc. etc. and you know it.
We here in America like having protection in our homes from any would be criminal.
You are suggesting that people trying to protect our guns rights do not like peaceful societies? I guess we all want our children shot on the streets.
No I’m starting quiet clearly I enjoy the fact that me or citizens of my country do not need to carry a gun to feel safe
That is a ludicrous assumption.
It is , you’re the one making it not I
Guess what, I have never seen a crime where I live here in America. I have never seen a gun brandished by anyone in public, yet we have the freedom to carry guns all we want.
Yet you’re rated 94th in the peaceful country index
Now ask yourself where you get your programmed notions that America is an ultra violent society?
If it’s not why are your police force all armed?
From the Liberal media conditioning you to believe we have a huge gun problem.
No , from research I know it’s a fact
Liberals want to take our guns one step at a time as they did in England. They will deny it until the day they make the final restriction.
I couldn’t care less If you blow each other to kingdom come that’s the price you pay for having guns
The big Liberal cities are where the vast majority of gun crimes happen. It's a cultural problem where most broken families gather to collect on the easy welfare.
Yet you don’t want to take their guns away
These children from all the broken homes join gangs to feel like they are part of some semblance of a family, and there in lies the problem with gun violence. Don't blame the weapon of choice, blame the culture that creates killers.
U S culture ? Yes I agree and I do blame it
If there were no guns, gangs would use bombs, knives, trucks, etc. etc. and you know it.
So gangs are targeting citizens at the moment with guns yet you say you’ve never seen a crime , what the ffuck are you worried about then ?
We here in America like having protection in our homes from any would be criminal.
Right , as I said you live in a country you’ve never seen a crime but you feel the need to be tooled up just in case ,what a fuckin*way to live
When I speak to a broken US culture, it is the Liberal big city culture of Government dependence and broken families created by amoral Godless Liberals who think a case worker can replace loving parents.
I have never felt the necessity to own a gun, but most sane rational people understand there is always a one in a million chance some lunatic could one day pick our house. I love my family and will do anything to protect them from that very rare event.
I hope if that day ever comes to your home, your rapist or thief or killer leaves your family alone. If you actually think the lack of guns will deter a criminal from your home, you are brainwashed. Criminals fear it when the home owner might have a gun.
When I speak to a broken US culture, it is the Liberal big city culture of Government dependence and broken families created by amoral Godless Liberals who think a case worker can replace loving parents.
But I’ve made a study of social problems in the Bible Belt in the US , teen pregnancy rates , STDs , homosexuality rates are pretty high how do you explain that?
I have never felt the necessity to own a gun, but most sane rational people understand there is always a one in a million chance some lunatic could one day pick our house. I love my family and will do anything to protect them from that very rare event.
I hope if that day ever comes to your home, your rapist or thief or killer leaves your family alone. If you actually think the lack of guns will deter a criminal from your home, you are brainwashed. Criminals fear it when the home owner might have a gun.
I do not feel the need to carry a weapon based on irrational fears ,we have devices called house alarms over here they’re pretty effective , banks swear by such devices
But I’ve made a study of social problems in the Bible Belt in the US , teen pregnancy rates , STDs , homosexuality rates are pretty high how do you explain that?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Jody, where computer scientists are qualified to talk about quantum physics and homosexuality is a "social problem".
Welcome to the wonderful world of Jody, where computer scientists are qualified to talk about quantum physics and homosexuality is a "social problem".
You’re forgetting one thing buddy an expert on Quantum computing gave an opinion on a simulation run on a ......quantum computer ......
Homosexuality to me is not a social problem to Christians like F W it certainly is , you always get things totally wrong in your rush to rabidly attack anyone who exposes your stupidity
You again misrepresent and Judge Christians. I have no problem with how any person chooses to live his life.
When they start trying to indoctrinate my children to the whims of activist LGBTQ agendas, that is when I start speaking out!
The Left has no right teaching my children about unnatural sexual orientations that go completely against the science of biology. You raise your children with your own moral values, and I will do the same. I happen to understand biology and want my children to as well.
You have bought into the activist groups telling you how they only want to be treated equally.
HOGWASH DECEPTION! They want to force every State and every person in this world to sanction their lifestyles as being natural normal sexual orientations. They never will be and I sure do not want boys who think they are girls going into my daughter's bathrooms.
People on the Left are arrogant thought police trying to force political correctness on others.
You again misrepresent and Judge Christians. I have no problem with how any person chooses to live his life.
I don’t , my family are mostly Christians. You have huge problems how others live their lives you spend your days here telling them how they should live their lives
When they start trying to indoctrinate my children to the whims of activist LGBTQ agendas, that is when I start speaking out!
Indoctrinate your kids? Who is doing this to your kids in the U S?
The Left has no right teaching my children about unnatural sexual orientations that go completely against the science of biology. You raise your children with your own moral values, and I will do the same. I happen to understand biology and want my children to as well.
Yesterday you’re more or less saying the U S is perfectly safe but I need my gun just in case , now you’re saying citizens of the U S are being indoctrinated against their will by lefty’s , what sort of a shit hole are you living in?
You have bought into the activist groups telling you how they only want to be treated equally.
HOGWASH DECEPTION! They want to force every State and every person in this world to sanction their lifestyles as being natural normal sexual orientations
THEY sound very dangerous I’m all confused you say last week the US is a great country now overnight it’s not safe in your homes unless you’re tooled up against rapists , murderers and serial killers as they could get into your house , children cannot go to school because sexual deviants are attempting to indoctrinate them and on top of all that lefty’s want to sanction unnatural lifestyles you poor man what an ordeal , why not move to North Korea it sounds like heaven compared to the U S?
. They never will be and I sure do not want boys who think they are girls going into my daughter's bathrooms.
You better hide your daughters lipstick in case one of them lefty deviants try’s it on , or get that gun of yours and give it to the deviant lefty between the eyes , go USA 🇺🇸
People on the Left are arrogant thought police trying to force political correctness on others.
They sure are , bring back nigger lynching , apple pie and the KKK none of that lefty bullshit back then on Walton’s mountain .....run along and get back to playing your jug
FromWithin, we are talking about whether police should carry tasers rather than guns, not citizens.
Police do not routinely carry weapons in Iceland, which has on of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe. It is easy for people to argue that this arrangement is successful because Iceland is a “small and tightly knit society.” Could it be that it is somewhat easier to be a harmonious country when the most common representatives of the country’s authority aren’t waving lethal weapons in your face?
I rather like guns, but I believe it's quite clear that criminals can not always get guns. There are in fact things society has done that has made obtaining illegal firearms more difficult, making it so many criminals can not get access to them.
Clearly some still can't, but I think it is safe to say that is a big difference from saying criminals will always be able to get them.
I have no husband, and I would prefer to use a firearm myself. But that doesn't actually apply to what I had just said.
I think you need to reread the beginning of my comment: I like firearms. I am not arguing for banning private ownership of firearms, at all. Nor am I arguing against police carrying firearms all together. I do think that there needs to be some change in procedure for a variety of circumstances, mind you.
Since you or no one else can guarantee that the criminal on the other side of that Cop's taser has a gun, then I will stand up for the family of that Cop by allowing him a gun for protecting us all, including himself.
I really don't understand why that was a dispute to what I had said previously. At not point did I tell you that I believed we should forbid law enforcement from carrying firearms. I simply disagreed with your assessment that criminals will always be able to illegally obtain guns, and said that I believe we need to make some changes to the way cops are trained in this country, specifically referring to their rules of engagement (as it were, dont believe that is the actual term for non military personnel).
Wrong interpretation of what I meant: I am disputing the absolute in question, that every single criminal will always be able to illegally obtain guns. I even made it clear that I acknowledge that there will always be some criminals that obtain illegal items, but that isn't an argument against deterrence, so long as deterrence does indeed work. Deterrence does not need to have a 100�ficacy rate to be worthwhile.
but that isn't an argument against deterrence, so long as deterrence does indeed work
Prohibition has a nasty history of making things worse. In this case, if you implemented this idea in America, 30,000 gangs would definitely not disarm, militia groups would not disarm, and you'd probably just wind up with hundreds of millions of undocumented secret guns.
It would take Waco times 100,000 to credibly enforce any such rule in America, and in reality, I believe a strong majority of cops wouldn't enforce it due to their own ideology on the 2nd Amendment being a right that is "self evident" and an "inalienable right endowed by our creator".
Also, if you look at it from reality, any theoretical country one thinks gun control would theoretically work, doesn't have a document that most of the country respects saying our gun rights cannot be taken away even by the government. Too many Americans ideologically believe that if the government tries to take your guns, you take out that government with those same guns.
Mexico has very strict gun laws but some of the worst gun violence in the world. Why? When you let hundreds of millions of people arm themselves, it's way too late to attempt a gun grab. Also, the government isn't powerful enough to attempt such a grab, and the people, gangs, and cartels know it.
In the case of America, right wingers know that a government who is physically unable to control its border is physically unable to grab their guns.
Prohibition has a nasty history of making things worse.
Prohibition was a ban on alcohol dumbass, not a ban on guns. Alcohol makes you feel happy. Guns shoot people in the face. I know the difference is subtle for a man of your sub-par intellect, but even you should understand.
In this case, if you implemented this idea in America, 30,000 gangs would definitely not disarm, militia groups would not disarm, and you'd probably just wind up with hundreds of millions of undocumented secret guns.
Ifs, buts and maybes is all you idiots ever throw out there. You try to frighten people into holding onto their guns, which is simply disgusting. The fact of the matter is that plenty of countries have banned guns and it has made a real difference to gun crime. There is not one single iota of logic in anything you have written. Gangs won't give up their guns? Well so fucking what, moron? Gangs won't stop gang raping grannies either, but that doesn't mean we should legalise gang raping grannies. It means the precise fucking OPPOSITE of that.
A few simple things: prohibition and deterrence are not the same thing, and forms of deterrence are never going to work equally in different countries. Deterrence must be geared to the specifics of a given circumstance. Pointing out that some forms of deterrence haven't worked in Mexico isn't really relevant to whether or not the same or different forms of deterrence for the same issue works in Sweden, or the United States.
So please, respond to what I'm actually saying, rather than going on about something I dont believe in (taking away people's guns).
I rather like guns, but I believe it's quite clear that criminals can not always get guns.
Hello GN:
Nahhh... Right wingers don't wanna CLOSE the gun show loophole because they think it'll impose on their freedom to buy and sell firearms willy nilly..
Truly, at gun shows in MY state, private sellers can rent tables along side licensed gun dealers, and sell their guns.. Because it's a PRIVATE sale, no background check is required.. When I bought my gun, there was a huge line at background check window, and I walked right on by.
Stop, he is only simply making a point. You grab your bazooka and let an officer pick up a taser who wins? The bazooka obviously wins same with any LETHAL fire-arm, his statement states that officers should carry guns and not just tasers.What you're saying is that you just got your feelings hurt.
You grab your bazooka and let an officer pick up a taser who wins? The bazooka obviously wins same with any LETHAL fire-arm
Wtf does that have to do with a bazooka versus an AR-15? Nothing. You are literally writing gibberish.
his statement states that officers should carry guns and not just tasers.
His "statement" was a death threat. At least be honest about it. He threatened to kill anybody who brandished a taser at him with an AR-15. Therefore, he should not have an AR-15, you fucking dumbass.
You point is kinda retarded. The bazooka relates to the fact that a TASER won't WIN, same thing implies to the AR.
OK sure you're right. We are all writing gibberish if you ask me, you are just a little to serious about this one, calling me a moron ? Really? Get a grip.
I have relatively little skepticism concerning his ownership of an AR. I have 100% skepticism concerning your ownership of a functioning bazooka. You never have picked your lies very effectively.