CreateDebate


Debate Info

37
29
Wha-! No! Duh, of course.
Debate Score:66
Arguments:50
Total Votes:90
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Wha-! No! (22)
 
 Duh, of course. (20)

Debate Creator

mechanic(66) pic



Should Guns be Restricted in America?

There has been talk of repealing the 2nd Amendment, I think they shouldn't, what about you?

Wha-! No!

Side Score: 37
VS.

Duh, of course.

Side Score: 29
3 points

People should have the right to bear arms. This is so that they may defend themselves and their property. They may need to defend themselves not only from criminals but also from an oppressive government if one should emerge from within or invade from without. Remember that police usually only arrive after a crime has been committed. Without a gun you are at the mercy of anybody that has a weapon or is stronger than you.

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

Then again, self defense. A kidnapper comes, and has a gun. If you don't have a gun to protect yourself and your kid it's bye bye! And some people make a living off of shooting animals and eating them or selling the meat. And if you shot at the windows when you were a kid, then that is your problem, not the responsible people's problem

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

Then again, self defense.

If you fire a toxic lump of lead into somebody's face, does that sound like attack or defence to you?

A kidnapper comes, and has a gun. If you don't have a gun to protect yourself and your kid it's bye bye!

Firstly, he's guaranteed to have a gun (probably for "self-defense" against mad bastards like you!) because you have legalised them. Secondly, you might easily be mistaken about someone's intentions because of paranoia or trust issues. Thirdly, the logical conclusion of your thought problem is that everybody gets shot instead of nobody getting shot.

Side: Duh, of course.
mechanic(66) Disputed
2 points

It's self defense if the kidnapper is pointing a gun at your face and you don't have another choice but to die. And a kidnapper would have a gun to (1)Protect himself from police, or (2)Shoot anyone that stands in his way

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

Or say there is a rattlesnake and it's about to bite you. No gun, that means you have 2 options:

1.Let it bite you

2.Run(it will still bite you)

But if you have a gun, you have 3 options

1.Let it bite you

2.Run

3.Shoot it

Notice how option 3 is the safest idea?

Side: Wha-! No!
3 points

Or say there is a rattlesnake and it's about to bite you. No gun, that means you have 2 options

Yes, one almost wonders how humanity managed to claw its way to survival against this rattlesnake epidemic for the 99,000 years it didn't have guns. Thank God we finally won this war, and it's all thanks to guns!!

Side: Duh, of course.
Dermot(3644) Disputed
2 points

Yeah , rattlesnakes are like that they come chasing humans and when about to bite they wait for clever humans to get their guns so they can be shot thus making the unfortunate snakes intentions not very well thought out ..... well that's snakes for ya

Little info just for you ......

Rattlesnakes tend to avoid wide-open spaces where they cannot hide from predators, and generally avoid humans if they are aware of their approach. Rattlesnakes rarely bite unless they feel threatened or provoked.

Side: Duh, of course.

The war against the rattlesnakes was long and bloody, but with the help of machine guns we finally defeated the enemy.

Side: Duh, of course.
EldonG(527) Disputed
1 point

Rattlesnakes don't bite unless startled. That's a basic rule. Chances are, if you aren't an idiot, you didn't notice him first. If you can draw faster than he strikes, you have some serious chops, and are in a damn rare group.

Side: Duh, of course.
Amarel(2373) Disputed
2 points

Rattlesnake also let you know they are there and they are startled. Usually before they bite you .

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

It's not guns that should be restricted but dumb-ass people who use those guns to inflict harm guns were made to protect us from stupid people who want to hurt us restricting them is only gonna lead to more unsafe use of these tools so in conclusion guns shouldn't be restricted in America but I believe we should have everyone take a psychological test and have a sort of punishment if they break the law such as prison time or even they are sent to a place to be taught the right ways to handle these firearms

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

Which would you rather have: one person with a semiautomatic rifle vs twenty something people with regular rifles, or would you rather have one person with a semiautomatic rifle and twenty something people without guns?

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

The Second Amendment states, "...being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Guns are necessary to keep us secure. Guns are a weapon that can be used for self defense. If a wicked person takes up a gun and kills many people, that is the fault of the wielder of the weapon, not the weapon itself.

Side: Wha-! No!
EldonG(527) Disputed
1 point

No it doesn't. It actually reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You left out the part about regulation. I wonder why.

Side: Duh, of course.
Amarel(2373) Clarified
1 point

To update the language, since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We don't have a militia of the people anymore, we have a standing army. So, since a standing army is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What's the problem?

Side: Wha-! No!
Armed_Up(13) Disputed
1 point

I was not trying to leave that part out. I was trying to make it shorter so it wouldn't seem like I wrote some long speech.

Side: Wha-! No!
TzarPepe(323) Clarified
1 point

]A regulated military is a military that can be kept in check by the people it is supposed to be fighting for.

A standing army is not the only thing necessary for the security of a free state. The ability of the populace to keep the standing army from instituting despotism is also necessary for the security of a free state.

In other words, we have the right to bear arms in order to keep the military regulated.

A military is necessary for the security of a free state, but so is keeping the military from usurping power.

Side: Wha-! No!
1 point

To be clear, I don't think the second amendment should be repealed, but I absolutely think that guns should be restricted. The word regulation appears in the second amendment. For a reason, might I add.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be.Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be. Nope. They should not be.

Side: Wha-! No!
2 points

I had a discussion on gun control a few weeks back, this is what I learned:

Following a recent discussion over the pros and cons of gun control measures (and the wider question of whether guns actually make a location safer), I feel compelled to offer up a few facts...

Homicide Rates

Data collected from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC for short) reveals that the USA had the highest homicide rate per 100,000 people of developed nations, circa 2015, with a figure of 4.88 homicides. How does this compare to other developed nations? We'll look at a set of countries for a fair comparison.

2. Belgium: 1.95 homicides per 100,000 people (again, circa 2015, which will be the case unless stated).

3. Canada: (2012) 1.68 per 100,000.

4. France: 1.58.

5. Romania: 1.49.

6. Sweden: 1.15.

7. Denmark: 0.99.

8. Australia: 0.98.

9. United Kingdom (2014): 0.92

10. Germany: 0.85.

11. Italy: 0.78.

12. South Korea (2014): 0.74.

13. Spain: 0.66.

14. Republic of Ireland: 0.64.

15. Japan (2014): 0.31.

So the homicide in the USA is nearly three times higher than that of Canada's, more than five times higher than in the UK, and fifteen times higher than Japan's.

Of course, it's not necessarily as simple as 'more guns = more homicides'. With that in mind, what percentage of homicides in these countries are carried out by firearms?

Well, as of 2014, the USA had 3.6 firearm homicides per 100,000 people. Granted, the total figure for homicides is from 2015, however, as the FBI's own data shows, firearm homicides have consistently remained by far the highest percentage of total homicides. 3.6 is approximately 74% of 4.88 - it is actually more likely that the percentage is closer to 65%, accounting for a direct comparison of total homicides in 2014, versus firearm homicides in 2014. Nevertheless, a clear majority of US homicides are carried out with a firearm.

The second country on the list is Belgium. Belgium recorded 1.95 homicides per 100,000 in 2015, as of 2010 guns could be attributed to 0.33 homicides per 100,000 people.

In Canada (though we must again allow for a margin of error, as the homicide by gun figures are from 2013), the figure stands at 0.38 of 1.68. This is around 22%. Therefore, Canada has not only a much lower homicide rate, but also a much lower homicide rate involving guns. Canada, co-incidentally, has more stringent laws surrounding guns than the USA does.

Up next is France. France is yet another nation to put into place more rigid gun control measures. 0.21 firearm homicides in France in 2012, meaning just over 13% of homicides involved guns.

Romania is next on that list and has some of the strictest laws on gun ownership of anywhere in the world. In 2012 0.04 per 100,000 people were killed in homicides by guns. Again, there is likely to be a small discrepancy in the numbers, as we're comparing different years, but this is also likely to be nominal. With these figures, 2.7% of homicides in Romania involved firearms.

Is a pattern emerging yet? Canada, France and Romania all have tighter laws regarding firearms, all have lower overall homicide rates and all have lower homicide rates involving firearms. Let's pick a few more countries shall we?

Contrary to popular belief and misconceptions, firearms can be owned in the UK. There are are however, tight rules on what sort of firearms are available and how to go about obtaining a licence for them. As of 2011 (we must again allow a small fudge factor) 0.06 homicides involved guns - meaning roughly 6.5% of homicides in the UK involved guns.

The data from Japan is from 2008 and so somewhat dated compared to other nations, but shows a homicide from guns as zero. In reality there will be a small number, but if Japan's recent record is anything to go by, it may well not even make double digits. Japan has incredibly strict laws on guns, amounting to more or less a complete ban.

By now the pattern is clear. Countries with stronger gun control laws have fewer homicides with or without guns. In fact, with 3.66 per 100,000 homicides involving guns in the USA, there are less homicides in total in the UK, France and Japan combined.

What about other forms of Violence?

One popular piece of misdirection is to distract from the homicide figures to focus on other crimes. 'Guns reduce incidences of robbery, assault, rape etc.' Quite why homicide is ignored when it is arguably the most serious of all violent crimes is beyond me, but nevertheless, is there any truth to this claim?

Let's start with robbery. In 2014 the USA actually scored better than several of the other nations listed, but also much worse than several others. The USA had nearly double the robbery rate per 100,000 people of the UK and Germany, 40% more than Canada, and far more than Japan. It fared better than Belgium, France and Spain. In 2016, 41% of all robberies in the USA involved firearms. In the UK, the broad trend of robbery with firearms shows a decline. In Canada, the percentage of robberies with guns is roughly 20%, or half that of the USA.

It has long been regarded by people who have studied the crime of robbery that, even if removing guns from the equation did not reduce the number of robberies, it would almost certainly reduce the number of fatal incidents when robberies do occur. The presence of guns as a deterrent is an idea which is clearly not working.

Which brings up an interesting point. The pro-gun side (or, more precisely, the anti-regulation side, as you can be pro-gun but also in favour of stronger regulations) often argues that easier access to guns can save lives. Statistically speaking, this is not true of the USA, as the earlier link demonstrates. There's no evidence to suggest an increased presence of guns on the streets reduces violent crime, and plenty to suggest that ease of access to guns plays a massive part in the homicide rate - itself the most serious and violent of all crimes.

For instance, when considering another violent, serious crime - rape - is the USA better or worse than the other comparison nations? As per 2010, the answer was generally worse. The USA had a marginally lower rape rate than Australia (27.3 compared to 28.6) and a much higher rate than Germany (9.4), Spain (3.4) and Japan (1.0).

Conclusions

Guns clearly contribute to higher homicide rates, and countries that have taken steps to introduce stricter controls have lower homicide rates. As already mentioned, the combined rate of total homicides across several nations is lower than the homicide rate with only firearms in the USA. The rate of robbery is, by and large, an inconsistent mixture of results, with some countries with tighter gun controls faring worse than the USA, and some faring better. However, there is a much higher likelihood of a robbery turning deadly where guns are involved. The USA also has a bigger problem with rape.

Freedoms and Rights

One argument I have been presented with, more than once, is the idea that a gun offers freedom, and that living in countries with tougher gun laws equates to not being free. To me, this is reflective of a very different mind set when it comes to guns, based on history. As you will see, the weaponry available during the time of the American Revolution was very different to the weapons of today. It was felt that an armed populace would keep the government in check, but back then, the weaponry available to both the armed forces and the civilian population was very similar. Flash forward to today, and the armed forces of the USA have access not only to superior weaponry, but vastly superior training, and are far more disciplined than the average citizen when it comes to using these weapons. This is to say nothing of the presence of tanks, warplanes and drones.

If the US government decided to become a tyrannical dictatorship tomorrow, complete with the backing of the police and military, would the presence of a semi-armed population, many of whom would lack the training and discipline of the average soldier, really make a difference (even with the generous assumption that every US citizen with a gun would take up arms against their government)?

The equation of guns = freedom is, in my humble opinion, a dangerous one. It has moved from a healthy respect for a deadly weapon, to one that borders on worship. It has reached a level where to even hint at tightening laws is seen as blasphemy, just as daring to suggest the Constitution (written to reflect different types of weapons) is fallible is treated as blasphemy. The irony is, the Constitution has been amended before, to reflect changing political, social and cultural forces.

Meanwhile, to suggest we are not free here in the UK is to commit a very obvious fallacy. We can and do hold local and general elections on a regular basis. We can hold protests. We can criticise our government and political parties. We can hold referendums. It's my suggestion to those who think that the gun is the only mean to uphold freedom, to stop and consider that freedom cannot be defined by the barrel of a deadly weapon.

Supporting Evidence: A Comparison of Nations (wp.me)
Side: Duh, of course.
Nomenclature(1171) Clarified
1 point

Of course, it's not necessarily as simple as 'more guns = more homicides'.

Not necessarily that simple. But it is that simple.

Side: Wha-! No!
Amarel(2373) Disputed
1 point

The problem with the data you present is that it compares only what you consider to be "developed nations". This means you leave out such nations as Jamaica, Bahamas, Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Marshal Islands, Latvia, and South Africa, which all have higher homicide rates than the US. I read an article on how strict gun laws are working in South Africa because they cut the homicide rate in half from 2000 to 2009. These laws brought the murder rate down from 67 per 100,000 to 34 per 100,000. The US is 4.88 per 100,000. If you consider the murder rate for all nations, not just the ones you consider developed, then the US is right about in the middle. The US murder rate is just a little worse than North Korea's 4.41 per 100,000 with NK operating under a totalitarian government that has completely banned guns. Thus, the pattern concerning gun control is clear, only if you cherry pick what countries to count.

When considering the role guns would play if the US government became tyrannical overnight, it is unreasonable to include "complete with the backing of the police and military" since the police and military is comprised of regular people who swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. So if overnight tyranny was implemented, there would be plenty of people in the Military and Police forces who would oppose it. Generals would go rogue with the support of their battalion. The nation would fracture. When that would happen, the guns already available to the police and the military would not be sufficient to support a revolt. They would need to bolster their armories. That support would come from an armed population. The same population which would have to engage in guerrilla tactics while rogue military units engaged more conventionally. If you thing an armed population engaged in rogue tactics cannot stand against the might of the US Military, I would direct you to Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

None of this is meant to be anti-regulation. As you said, one can be pro-gun and pro-gun regulation. This is where I fall. There are plenty of people who should not have firearms. Regulations that keep them from having them are necessary. I believe my state has reasonable gun law, our murder rate is relatively low, and our law abiding citizens love their guns.

Side: Wha-! No!
darthtimon(41) Disputed
2 points

The comparison was of developed nations because they offer the most 'like-for-like' comparisons. Comparing developed first-world nations to second and third-world countries with various problems doesn't make for an accurate comparison of the effectiveness of gun control measures.

Those facts are therefore pretty clear. When measured against nations of similar development, the US has a considerably worse problem with homicide. Two-thirds of homicides in the US involve firearms - in fact, the US homicide rate with just guns is worse than the rate of several nations total homicide figures combined.

Moreover, there is the inflexibility of the USA as a nation to make effective changes. Mass shootings have become almost routine, with little or no action taken, because of a document written hundreds of years ago.

I would also note that I quantified my suggestion about the US government having the backing of the police and military. IF they had that backing, with all their hardware, the presence of guns among the civilian population would make no difference. If the US government suddenly did turn to tyranny tomorrow, there's no telling what might happen in respect of the military/police. As for the Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq scenarios - the only truly relevant one is Vietnam, for in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq the problem has come more from terrorists than from an armed populace.

Side: Duh, of course.
NathanAllen(2138) Clarified
1 point

Did you know that can and probably is a biased source? I say this because no government agency is backing it nor is any educational sites. And their one and only source is locked. So their is no proof to back anything up.

This source is not as reliable but it is a source to show that most sites and people only think of developed countries like the UK,Russia, China, United States but you don't look at Kenya a 3rd world country with high crime rates. But it is not fully developed.

https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

This next source has a interactive map which shows crime rates by clicking on the country. It also shows percentage of which the crimes where done by firearms.This firearm percentage is what you're source is missing. I can kill 100,000 people with a knife but by your source it would all be together it would not say the percentage done by guns.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3076470/How-does-country-fare-MURDER-MAP-Interactive-graphic-shows-homicide-rates-world.html

Supporting Evidence: A reliable and actual source (ourworldindata.org)
Side: Wha-! No!
0 points

Extremely well researched, thought out, and presented. The one thing that's difficult to compensate for is American attitudes, which, frankly, border on the insane. I say that as an American.

Side: Duh, of course.
1 point

The debate heading says "restricted". That does not automatically mean banned. I would be against banning.

"Restricted" could mean any of the following:

Certain types (military) not in public hands

Certain mechanical safety features (trigger locks, biometrics)

Certain transport or storage restrictions (locked drawers; not sitting out in the open)

Licensure and/or training

Certain locations the public can't bring them (court rooms, federal buildings, White House)

Even basic hunting licenses (to control how many deer, etc, get culled per season)

Many of those basic restrictions are completely justifiable and not at all trying to abolish guns from everyone.

Side: Duh, of course.
1 point

I already created an identical debate 10 days ago, so if anyone's interested....

Side: Duh, of course.
1 point

Everyone says that they deserve the right to protect themselves, and they do, but that's all well and good until one of them goes crazy and decide to shoot up a mall, or a mosque or a bullied kid finds his dads gun and shoots up his school. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but fuck knows guns make it a hell of a lot easier. Guns should be controlled, or at the very very least have much more thorough background checks and tests to have a licence to own a gun, or the shootings won't stop at such a lethal rate that they currently are, if anything, they'll only get more lethal with the more people who own guns.

Side: Duh, of course.
0 points

I think thaey should because If a rocket at rest expels... something cubic (what's that?) metres of gas at... something kilometres (how far is that?) per hour (how long is that?), using Newton's... Newton's... law that comes after the other laws, determine the acceleration applied to the rocket.

Use the formula (the what?) F... is somehow related to m and a.

See what I'm getting at here?

Side: Duh, of course.
-1 points

Hello m:

Sure.. I had a BB gun when I was a kid.. My mom told me to be responsible.. As long as I was, she didn't take it away from me.. But, when I started shooting at WINDOWS, she took it away..

As Americans, we USED to be responsible with guns.. Now, we're not.. So, our mothers (the government) should take them away..

excon

Side: Duh, of course.
Amarel(2373) Disputed
0 points

The government is not my mother. It isn’t even my nanny. I am not responsible for your misdeeds. My parents didn’t take away my B.B. gun due to your shooting out windows. No one would call that justice.

Side: Wha-! No!
-1 points

You should be embarrassed to even pose this as a question. It's right up there with, "Did Jesus really rise from the dead?" and "Is climate change real?".

Side: Duh, of course.