CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
32
I'm for because: I'm against because:
Debate Score:69
Arguments:38
Total Votes:80
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I'm for because: (21)
 
 I'm against because: (17)

Debate Creator

AryaSaxon(35) pic



Right to bear arms, are you for or against?

I'm for because:

Side Score: 37
VS.

I'm against because:

Side Score: 32
2 points

Absolutely for...it's our right and I love guns. You can feel the freedom it represents in its touch. I almost always have one attached to my hip.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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

because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Side: I'm for because:
Peekaboo(704) Disputed
3 points

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.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Side: I'm against because:

When I read the Australia thing, I was sort of shocked too...

Side: I'm against because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
AryaSaxon(35) Disputed
2 points

You may think the claim to be wild, but it's true nonetheless.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
catticus90(360) Disputed
2 points

But then I could argue that there are countries with a lower crime rate and murder rate than Switzerland who do not allow guns.

Side: I'm against because:
chatturgha(1631) Disputed
2 points

That doesn't invalidate my point though, LOL. It just shows that we're both right.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

If the government has the right then I must have the same right!

Side: I'm for because:

All citizens have the right to bear arms because it's in the Bill of Rights...

I don't see enough benefit from that though...but I gotta obey the law.

Side: I'm for because:
Merlin13(1258) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: I'm against because:
1 point

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.

Side: I'm for because:
catticus90(360) Disputed
1 point

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?

Side: I'm against because:
2 points

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?

Side: I'm for because:
whatever19(6) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I'm for because:
1 point

Read the Second Amendment. If you believe in the Constitution, you're for it. Case closed.

Side: I'm for because:

Guns are for self defense and defense against a tyrannical government.

Side: I'm for because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm against because:
AryaSaxon(35) Disputed
2 points

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.

Side: I'm for because:
catticus90(360) Disputed
2 points

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?

Side: I'm against because:
braydens24(20) Disputed
1 point

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.

Side: I'm for because:
catticus90(360) Disputed
1 point

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#Firearms_crime and another link to support this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm

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.

Side: I'm against because:
2 points

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.

Side: I'm against because:

The gun violence in America is horrifying. Guns should be banned.

Side: I'm against because:

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.

The gun violence in America is an American Shame!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015

Side: I'm against because: