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.
That sentiment right there is preciely and exactly the reason US fatal firearm related deaths are usually about an order of magnitude higher than any other country every year, good luck with that.
For those who believe that stricter European gun laws have made a difference, here are just some occurrences involving MULTIPLE shootings:
Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001: a man murdered 15 members of a cantonal parliament;
Tours, France, October 29, 2001: 4 people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started killing people at a busy intersection in the city;
Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: a man kills 8 city councilors after a city council meeting;
Erfurt, Germany, April 26,2002: a former student kills 18 people at a secondary school;
Freising, Germany, February 19, 2002: 3 people killed and 1 wounded at a high school;
Turin, Italy, October 15, 2002: 7 people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city;
Madrid, Spain, October 1,2006: a man kills 2 employees and wounds another at a company from where he was fired;
Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school;
Southern Finland, November 7, 2007: 7 students and principal were killed at a high school;
Naples, Italy, September 18,2008: 7 dead and 2 seriously wounded in a public meeting hall;
Kauhajoki, Finland, September 23, 2008: 10 people were shot to death at a college;
Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17 year-old student killed 15 people, including 9 students and 3 teachers;
Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: 10 people killed and 2 injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school;
Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: 3 people killed and 2 injured by a student at a vocational college;
Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: 3 people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe';
Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: 1 person dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple;
Espoo, Finland, December 31,2009: 4 people were killed while shopping in a mall on New Year's Eve;
Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
These are just the multiple shootings, not mentioning the single shootings, so is this an example of how well gun control is working? At least here, I went through training and an extensive background check to get a license to carry a handgun. Statistics show that those who go through the same training and check are unlikely to use their weapon in anything other than self defense or defense of others in danger. I prefer to keep my peace of mind because I know how and when to use it. Good luck to you.
BEIJING, Jan. 9 (Xinhua) -- The following are the main mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1999.
-- In April 1999, two teenage schoolboys shot and killed 12 schoolmates and a teacher at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, before killing themselves.
-- In July 1999, a stock exchange trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killed 12 people including his wife and two children before taking his own life.
-- In September 1999, a gunman opened fire at a prayer service in Fort Worth, Texas, killing six people before committing suicide.
-- In October 2002, a series of sniper-style shootings occurred in Washington DC, leaving 10 dead.
-- In August 2003 in Chicago, a laid-off worker shot and killed six of his former workmates.
-- In November 2004 in Birchwood, Wisconsin, a hunter killed six other hunters and wounded two others after an argument with them.
-- In March 2005, a man opened fire at a church service in Brookfield, Wisconsin, killing seven people.
-- In October 2006, a truck driver killed five schoolgirls and seriously wounded six others in a school in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania before taking his own life.
-- In April 2007, a student shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia, before shooting himself, making it the deadliest mass shooting in the United States after 2000.
-- In December 2007, a 20-year-old man killed nine people and injured five others in a shopping center in Omaha, Nebraska.
-- In December 2007, a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.
-- In February 2008, a shooter who is still at large tied up and shot six women at a suburban clothing store in Chicago, leaving five of them dead and the remaining one injured.
-- In February 2008, a man opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five students and wounding 16 others before laying down his weapon and surrendering.
-- In September 2008, a mentally ill man who was released from jail one month earlier shot eight people in Alger, Washington, leaving six of them dead and the rest two wounded.
-- In December 2008, a man dressed in a Santa Claus suit opened fire at a family Christmas party in Covina, California, then set fire on the house and killed himself. Police later found nine people dead in the debris of the house.
-- In March 2009, a 28-year-old laid-off worker opened fire while driving a car through several towns in Alabama, killing 10 people.
-- In March 2009, a heavily-armed gunman shot dead eight people, many of them elderly and sick people, in a private-owned nursing home in North Carolina.
-- In March 2009, six people were shot dead in a high-grade apartment building in Santa Clara, California.
-- In April 2009, a man shot dead 13 people at a civic center in Binghamton, New York.
-- In November 2009, U.S. army psychologist Major Nidal Hasan opened fire at a military base in Fort Hood, Texas, leaving 13 dead and 42 others wounded.
-- In January 2011, a gunman opened fire at a public gathering outside a grocery in Tuscon, Arizona, killing six people including a nine-year-old girl and wounding at least 12 others. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely injured with a gunshot to the head.
I present to you a lovely list of shootings.
To know whether gun control does or does not make a difference you need to compare the US's number of shootings and Europe's number of shootings. You can't just state that it makes no difference based a list of X numbers of reported shootings.
There will always be gun violence. No matter where you are. With or without gun control. So,just stating a few cases in Europe does not prove your point.
I don't deny the shootings here, I just get annoyed when it gets stated like it only happens here and Europe is so much better for having the gun control. As you stated, which was my point, it doesn't matter. It will happen wherever someone loses it and goes on a shooting spree. My only point was to the response I got for carrying a gun. I am legal to carry it, trained in how to use it, have no criminal background, and most all that go through all that are never involved in a violent crime. There have been very few that were and even a lot of those never involved a gun.
l don't deny the shootings here, I just get annoyed when it gets stated like it only happens here and Europe is so much better for having the gun control.
Those kinds of illogical assumptions annoy me too. Europe has his own problems to deal with. Just because they have gun control does not make them better. By the way, history shows that their lack of guns was not very helpful toward fighting the ones who did have guns (France and Great Britain, World War I and II were owned)
As you stated, which was my point, it doesn't matter.
Did I really say that? If I did, excuse me, it was not what I meant. Gun control does matter. Gun control has proven to lower the amount of gun violence.
-The people in the US have the right to have a gun. Faced with people who have guns, the police must have guns as well. So, by observing the amount of police who have guns we should be able to estimate the amount of guns the people hold-
What I am about to say is from personal experience. It is not real proof of anything. You can choose not to believe me.
I have been to France many times to visit my family and I’ve always noticed that a lot of police men did not have guns. I’ve never ever seen that in the US. This is just a tiny remark.
My only point was to the response I got for carrying a gun. I am legal to carry it, trained in how to use it, have no criminal background, and most all that go through all that are never involved in a violent crime. There have been very few that were and even a lot of those never involved a gun.
First, if you don’t use a gun to kill someone or something, what do you use it for?
Second, what you said is not true: in 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders -National Institute of Justice
I could understand the use of guns at war… The rules of war are to eliminate the enemy until he surrenders. So, guns are the most effective path toward that goal.
What is the point of guns when they are not used for war? Why do you have your gun with you at all times?
I could understand that people have guns to protect themselves from those have guns. In neighborhoods, with a lot of drive by shootings, a gun is necessary. Stricter gun control will lower the amount of shootings. Our people do not want gun control, though. So, is better protection not what they want? I am not saying complete protection. You can die from anything these days. My point is my fellow Americans like guns. They are fun. Right? Makes you feel… powerful?
You see, for some, guns are like big cars. I could understand someone using a big car in the mountains or in areas with rough terrain. But in the city? What is the point of that? So, that you can easily traverse the large extend of smooth cement? I believe that in those cases, big cars, like guns, compensate what some lack…
I think with time people truly forgot why they were given te right to bear arms. It really was to protect ourselves from our government.
Not everybody. I am sure you have a good reason to have your gun with you. You never know who is out there to get you. ;)
PS. I reread what I wrote and realized how this may be offensive. But know that this is an argument for everyone who is for gun control. I just decided to put in y argument against gun control along with my response to your argument. Excuse me. I am truly not trying to offend you.
Second, what you said is not true: in 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders
What I said was that those that go through the training and are licensed to carry are less likely to be involved in a gun related murder. True, guns are for killing, but those of us who choose to be licensed are simply prepared to kill if the threat is presented to us to go to that extreme. Very few concealed carry licensed individuals have had their licenses revoked due to unnecessary gun violence. Many of those few have had them revoked due to violence that did not even involve a gun. I could dig through my stacks of magazines to give you those references, but you could probably find it as easily if you google it. As far as me carrying a gun, let me refer you to this story...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews, and others,
who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control.....56 million people.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in.
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies are
up 44 percent! (Yes, armed robberies!)
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are
now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property.
And, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please
remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America
If you're going to copypasta, at least acknowledge the source please. I knew there wasn't a massive seizure of guns in Australia last year, and had to google around to find out where the heck you got all these "statistics" from.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control.....56 million people.
That's quite a wild claim to make. These people were 'exterminated' by armies, I don't think if a Jewish citizen owned a gun in the holocaust they could defend themselves.
It's not true. They weren't killed because they didn't have guns to defend themselves. They were killed because they were overpowered by some of the worlds most powerful armies at that time. Like I said even if they had guns, most of them would have still died. And your point about the Christians in Africa...do you think a Christian would really own a gun let alone use it to murder someone?
You should refer to peekaboo's link, but your post still brings up a good point. A totalitarian regime would not be as successful if they allowed their citizens to carry weapons. You can't just round up people if they have the ability to fight back.
When did the Jews start to actually kill Nazis? When the up-risers got their hands on guns.
I despise people who glorify the killing of things and the shooting of guns that are meant to kill people.
BUT, I still believe that, not only should we be free to bear arms, but gun ownership should be mandatory.
Why?
Criminals are not predators. Criminals are parasites. Cowards. When a criminal thinks there's significant a risk that he'll die on his 'job', then he's not going to do his 'job' out of fear.
This is proven.
Switzerland (or Sweden or something) has mandatory gun ownership for all citizens, and they have some of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.
It sounds as if you may be against hunting. I disagree with hunting for pure sport, but I fully agree with it if they eat what they kill. If I've misunderstood, I apologize.
The rest of what you say I agree with wholeheartedly.
I'm for it because as an individual, I believe that I should have the right to defend myself from people who do not like to play fair (spoiler: criminals don't like to play fair).
As I stated before, the Jewish and French resistance towards the Nazis were actually able to fight back once they got their hands on guns. When they didn't have guns, the Nazis could round up the jews and gypsies at no harm to them. Clearly, the banning of all guns does not LEAD to a totalitarian dictatorship... but it surely makes it easier.
If our government ever decides to totally take over, you'll understand it then. The forefathers had enough insight to know that a government could develop the power to take total control, and they wrote that in so the people would have the means to overthrow such a government once again.
In the U.S. if i were made illegal that wouldn't stop the demand for it, it would instead raise up a new wave of mobsters who would go around terrorizing cities again selling guns at staggering prices. whilst they would be getting rich, people would end up dead.
That's stupid you have no future premonition. Perhaps you should take a look at the developed countries that have made gun ownership mostly illegal, look at your own country gun crime statistics and then re evaluate that comment. Anywhere that guns are illegal are going to have to pay massive prices to obtain one. It would still keep gun crime down?
Take away a mans gun a he will pull a knife. Since it would be impossible to completely illegalize guns(the massive following against anti gun laws ensures that) the most they would be able to is make people keep it at home. So same price, same gun, just keep it at home. Do you think the people behind shootings are going to obey that law?
Weed is not legal to have, but trust that we will find any way to illegally use it. They cant confiscate every gun, there just might be more people in prison for gun crimes but that's probably the only effect it would have. If the government tried to revoke one of our constitutional rights it would raise hell, causing more conflict.
I live in the United Kingdom where fire arms are for the most part illegal (you can get a licence for hunting guns). Although Northern Ireland have slightly different laws so I'll dedicate this argument to England/Wales.
A few facts about the lack of gun crime due to these laws.
A Home Office study published in 2007 reported that gun crime in England & Wales remains a relatively rare event. Firearms (including air guns) were used in 21,521 recorded crimes. It said that injury caused during a firearm offence was rare with fewer than 3% resulting in a serious or fatal injury.
In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm
And just co compare our rates to America where you can own a gun.
By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales.
I suppose it's a situation where you have to be persistent and absolute with the law. If a lot of people own guns in a country others feel like they have to own a gun for their own protection against people with guns. So it ends up in a vicious cycle. Where as in a country where guns are illegal to own on almost all grounds, no one has a gun so the reason to own one through gun threat is not there.
Those stats are difficult to believe. I have British friends who tell me about the problems that are occuring there due to the common man not being able to defend himself in time of need.
"Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws (concealed carry laws), states reduced murders by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7%, and robbery by 3%...While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where the crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."~Prof. John R. Lott Jr.
I'm sorry but 'you have British friends'? So my reasonably sourced statistics are hard to believe but you expect someones word of mouth or 'hear say' to be a accurate source of information? I have lived in Britain my entire 21 years of life, and no one I know has ever felt they wished they owned a gun to defend themselves or any other weapon for that matter (I've even lived in east London where gun crime is higher than the rest of England). This gun crime generally stems from 'gangs' who gain influence from U.S gangs (This is from word of mouth of convicted 'gang' criminals not assumption or stereotype). I'm not saying the U.S.A is to blame at all but there is a lot more 'gang crime' in the U.S than the UK which highly contributes to gun crime.
My point is if gun ownership is about defending yourself against someone else with a gun then isn't complete gun banning a sensible route to take? If no one has a gun than why would you feel you had to defend against one?
The least you could do is provide some kind of source for your arguments. You indicated a "home study," but you provided no link to the actual numbers. Until such time, I'm relying solely on your "word of mouth," as you put it. Oh hey, funny how that works out, isn't it?
And no, you're wrong when you say that banning guns will eliminate gun crimes. Criminals will find ways to get guns, be it through smuggling, the black market, etc.. You can dispute that all you want, but if you believe in your cited "home study," you will see that there are in fact gun crimes in the UK. So interestingly enough, this notion that banning guns eliminates gun crimes is wrong not only through my arguments, but also through your own.
So... murderers, rapists, robbers, and criminals who really want a gun will get a gun. When my life is threatened by one of these types of people holding a gun to my head, I want to be able to draw on him and defend myself with something other than just my bare hands.
See, but that's relying upon the assumption that banning guns means that no one will have any guns whatsoever. I disagree. That's hoping for some kind of utopian community in which guns do not exist, and murderers have no means to obtain them.
I don't necessarily trust your source, because you didn't give me a link or some location at which I could see the figures you're talking about. They seem a bit low to me. But regardless, those gun crimes you were just talking about from your "home office study"... if the UK's ban on guns really worked like you say it does, there would be not 21,521 gun-related crimes, but 0 gun-related crimes. There would be not 50 gun homicides, but 0 gun homicides. And rather than 6.6% of all homicides making use of a firearm, 0% of homicides would involve firearms.
Now you'll probably wonder, how are gun-related crimes possible when we have a national ban on firearms? Simple: the hard criminals who want to get guns and use them for bad purposes will get them, be it through smuggling, trafficking, the black market, or what have you. The bad guys will get guns and use them for bad things. If I ever come across one of those bad guys, I'm going to want to have something with a little more "umph" than my bare hands to defend myself with.
See, but that's relying upon the assumption that banning guns means that no one will have any guns whatsoever
No, I don't believe this, my argument supports that by making guns illegal gun crimes will be reduced not completely halted. By using the UK statistics (I'm linking you the source and others) in comparison to the U.S.A where, for the most part, guns are easy to obtain it's clear to see that the UK have a greatly reduced gun crime rate.
I don't necessarily trust your source, because you didn't give me a link or some location at which I could see the figures you're talking about. They seem a bit low to me
Instead of demeaning my sources you could have just asked for the links. You admit they seem low and that's because they are low.
if the UK's ban on guns really worked like you say it does, there would be not 21,521
It's not about eliminating it, almost all illegal things are obtainable by some people. However it obviously significantly reduced the incidents. 21, 521 that includes air guns (pellet guns) which I imagine, as the rate of injury and death is so low, takes up a large proportion of those figures.
Now you'll probably wonder, how are gun-related crimes possible when we have a national ban on firearms?
No, I don't wonder. Just like heroin is illegal, people can still obtain these things. It's about reducing it.
I understand that the gun crime rate is lower, and I'm sorry for demeaning your source. I just appreciate when people provide links to the data they are talking about.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to defend myself from violent gun-wielding criminals (which will exist in any state, regardless of regulations) with a gun of my own. If a burglar came into your home, wouldn't you feel safer pulling out a firearm and defending yourself and your family? Because I sleep safer at night knowing I not only have the ability to defend myself, but the right to defend myself.
Consider this. "'Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been 'scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim'; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either 'often' or 'regularly' worried that they '[m]ight get shot at by the victim'; and 57% agreed with the statement, 'Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.'" (Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html) ) I understand that stricter gun control policies can help reduce the number of gun-related crimes, but you can't deny the fact that the United States's policy helps enable its citizens to defend themselves against armed assailants.
This is the losing side and I just like to bring up contrasting considerations that might lead people astray from how they usually think.
Has anyone figured out yet that we live in the year 2011 and today gun rights may protect you from petty thugs, but will do next to zilch to protect you from the more powerful purveyors of violence and tyranny? What puts people in the most danger is lack of vigilance. People are all up in arms about their right to carry pea shooters while those with the big guns are steadily disassembling the apparatus we fashion for ourselves so that we might know what the fuck is going on in the world. Everything is theater and the common citizen only knows what is essentially spoon fed to them. Should martial law be instituted, it will be an easy matter to dispose of any enemies of the state. You can't possibly think that any formidable resistance could be mustered without the ability to robustly communicate and organize? Get real. The only glimmer of hope I see is that those in power still seem concerned with shaping public opinion. The window of opportunity for creating anything under the radar is closing. Cling to your archaic war tools with the confidence of an idiot if you like, but you could be killed by a zit faced kid holding a joystick, controlling an unmanned drone, while for all he knows he's just performing a training exercise.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.