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.
IMO, it is part of our freedoms and liberties as U.S. citizens. Do we really need a reason? Do we really need to explain ourselves? I can, I will and I do own firearms! It's my right, I don't need to explain myself to anyone, in fact, it is also one of my rights not to have to explain myself.
Yes, it is a right mentioned in the constitution, listed the same as freedom of speech, religion, etc. Our right is fundamental to protecting ourselves against criminals, psychos, and tyrannical governments.
Right, because the Constitution got everything right. That is why we have never had to amend it. It was just so damn perfect that nothing included in it could be wrong.
If it isn't perfect, then why don't we get rid of it? Shred it? We would get rid of the second amendment. But we would also lose the right of free-speech, religion, representation, a just court, and privacy. How would you like that? Or how about we just get rid of your freedom of speech, yet keep the 2nd amendment? How would you feel? Probably violated and suppressed, right? Now you know how I feel. An attack on one is an attack on the entire Bill of Rights. I believe that it does not need to be changed because the Founding Father had the right idea in the first place. If it isn't broken, why are we trying to fix it?
Actually, I was not disputing the right to bear arms but rather the justification you gave for preserving that right. My point was that taking something as correct solely because it is the way it has been done is a poor rationale. If we stuck with what the founding generation established, we would still have slavery and women would remain disenfranchised. There needs to be a reason to keep something over, and I think gun rights advocacy benefits far more from advancing those arguments than from reverting to an easy fallback of "tradition".
I think it is non-intuitive to state that an "attack" on one amendment or right included in the Bill of Rights is an attack on all of them. Many of the founding fathers who drafted the original ten amendments did not even consider them to be a single body of rights but did view them as being separate.
Furthermore, I do not think the arguments or evidence have been adequately provided to support the claim that the right to bear arms is not in fact "broken". I think that the concerns of anti-gun advocates have not been seriously addressed in a fashion that befits those concerns, particularly where the right to bear arms may be in direct conflict with the right to life (the latter of which I would argue trumps the former).
Finally, to make my stance more explicit I am both a gun rights advocate and a regulation advocate. Just as we embrace the right to free speech but restrict it where it conflicts with the public interest so to should the right to bear arms be subject to restriction. There is no reason it should have special exclusion from the same considerations to which all other rights are subjected.
Okay, now I see where your coming from. That makes sense. However, I still think that the way some advocates are going is way to much. I don't think, for example, banning semi-auto weapons will decrease crime. The restriction is, in my opinion, a blatant violation of the second amendment.
Which tyrannical government, may I ask, are you and some hillbillies going to be able to defend against, which the U.S. military would not be able to defend against?
I just find it curious that it is (not you necessarily) a majority overweight, under-educated, and frankly slow and not very physically capable individuals, who are the most convinced it is on them to protect the nation from some shadow force bent on our destruction.
It's very, very odd.
I don't want to play along with these idiots anymore.
Pretend time is over, put your toys away. If you want a rifle to hunt or a regular hand gun, pass a background check and some mental tests and okay. If you want 30 clips and semi-automatic weapons, join the military.
No, it's not the end of the story. It doesn't matter what tyrannical government that we defend against, it could be a foreign power invading gather U.S or the U.S. government. And not all of us "hillbillies" are overweight and slow and undereducated, which is biased. I could say the same for you skinny jean, weed smoking, liberal, conservative haters. But, of course, that is a bias. Our right to own weapons is a constitutional right designed to keep the government in check. For example:
The recent Arab Spring shows that citizens with ak-47's can defeat tyrannical governments who have jets, bombs, rockets, and tanks. Look at Libya, Syria, and Tunisia. They are redesigning the middle-east. Our right to own weapons are integral for keeping our country free. You know why our government is so great? Because they know that we can overtake them. That's what the founding fathers designed the second amendment for. They didn't just think, "Oh, and throw in that amendment because I want to go hunting!". No, it was made to defend and keep the government in check. And by the way. These are not toys. And if what liberals say about us gun owners being so violent is true, all you liberals would be dead a long time ago. You can take my gun from my cold, dead hands.
If you believe that the Arab governments are just a bunch of weak civilians, you show your utter ignorance in world events. Look at Syria, who has chemical weapons (which, thankfully, they have not used), rockets, many tanks, and rules the air in Syria. Israel had a tough time defeating them in the Yom Kippur War, and Syria has trained these weapons on their rebels, who are winning right now. Who says that if the citizens of the United States rebelled, the government would win? Who says that only Texas would be fighting? And would the military be willing to fight against its own citizens? Look at the army desertions in Syria and Libya.
Syria has no proper army and never had, they have forces to surround only a single city, that's why they fight the way they do. Using second hand obsolete Russian technology mostly pre-cold war. Libya is even weaker
How did they not have a proper army? What is defined as "proper"? They have a strong military force that almost defeated Israel, which many countries can not claim, and they are now fighting their own citizens.
Only some soldiers are "trained", majority just get clothes and a weapon,to became officer you just pay a "fee" or be a family member of an officer. They don't do any servicing to their armor. Combat tactics from movies.
Syria has no Army like western countries, it's more like smaller groups under rule of local "general", there are rivals between them also religious differences that makes them not really cooperating.
I have lived in flat share with Syrian deserter/refugee...
..."almost defeated Israel" as Germany almost defeated Russia.
Germany lost because of Hitler being an idiot. They had the best army in the world and he squandered it. I just can't see the US government completely wiping out a rebellion by the people. It's just not possible. There are too many of people to put down. And a lot of soldiers would not be willing to fight.
There very many studies, US soldiers would fight against US rebels, it wouldn't be long and chaotic like in Syria or Libya, US has proper Army with very advance intelligence system, easy to strike anywhere in mater of minutes.
On the other side, the rebels would be untrained disorganized rednecks similar to tribal "Freedom" fighters from Syria.
Do you really think so that bunch of farmers in pickups would take over any US base?
It's just a myth ...that you need your weapons to fight against tyrant government ...myth spread by weapon manufactures.
It is not a myth. It has been around since the founding of the US, way before some gun manufacturer. The founding fathers created the second amendment for the purpose of defending against the federal government should the need ever arise. You can look at their quotes about the bill of rights to confirm it.
but it's horribly obsolete model, "founding fathers" lived in times when rifle was the only available weapon. No you cannot defend against "governmental terror". Just weapon manufacturers makes you think that by buying multipack of AKs makes you somehow safer against Evil government's tanks, artillery, battleships, bombers, missiles, drones....
I guess I am. I believe in history repeating itself, and I'm preparing myself for it. I think you resent us for owning weapons because we were the ones that kicked you out during the revolution. I enjoy my rights, and I can defend against "governmental terror". I refuse to lie down and submit, which many did in Britain, Australia, and other countries. The government has put the thought into your head that you cannot resist them. It's just like in the book "1984" (which, if you haven't read, is a good book that I recommend).
I'm not British, your belief is just infantile fallacy ....refuse to lay down? WTF are you talking about? Your gov may hold you in prison indefinitely without evidence or tap you or torture without breaking any law, but you keep blabbing about cameras in UK (which has 1/5 of the No. of cameras in US).
" I believe in history repeating itself" no it does not, that's why it's called history.
If your not British, then why did you list yourself as from Wales in a previous debate? Or do you consider yourself more Welsh than British? Anyway, the gov. does not have the right to contain me without fair trial and evidence. Now, the President has that right if it is determined I am a threat to national security, or in a time of Marshall Law. The gov. itself does not. I do believe I mentioned cameras only once, but I'll run with it. The only reason the US has more cameras than the UK is because we are a huge country with more people, resources, territory, etc. It's absurd though in the UK that there is one camera for every 3 people. The US doesn't have that kind of statistic and it doesn't need to. And, yes, history does repeat itself, many times. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Okay, that makes sense. Sorry for the assumption. Anyway, the UK still has more cameras per capita than any other country in the world. I would feel like Big Brother is watching my every move.
Which government are you going to defend against which the U.S. government cannot defend against.
Potentially, the U.S. Government. That's what the 2nd amendment is for. It guarantees the ability to enforce all the other rights. Government should be afraid of the people, not people afraid of the government.
And our military is made up of citizens just like you, it's a "armed militia" made up of citizens. The 2nd amendment was written when muskets were the only weapon around and when our government needed to recruit its citizens to defend itself. It doesn't anymore. Even if some insanity infected all of the military and they decided to attack their friends, parents, relatives for some unimaginable reason, as you seem to be implying, even should this impossible and ridiculous scenario happen, your guns and all of the guns of all of the citizens won't be able to do jack shit against fighter jets, tanks, drones, battleships, etc.
It's a silly fantasy.
Our government shouldn't be scared of the citizens which make up the government, and the citizens that make up the government shouldn't be afraid of the government. It's ridiculous.
So your argument is that they are so powerful, ANY weapons we have will be useless against them so we should not have weapons?
Yes, the government should be VERY afraid of the citizenry.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Jefferson
If all of the United State's enemies invaded, like China, Russia, N.Korea, the Middle East, Cuba, and Venezuela, the combined force of the US military and the citizenry could put over 160 million people fighting back. If you take out the active US military, then that is 158 million armed citizens aged 17-49. Now tell me what country would want to attack that? I believe we could defend ourselves against any foreign invader. By itself, the US probably could not defend against this attack. But how about 160 million soldiers? The citizens of the United States can. With that number, we also have the ability to take over a tyrannical US government if the need should arise (though I hope it doesn't). I believe we can defend against any foreign power.
Or like if aliens invaded. Or like if the mole people came to the surface. Or like if the computers became conscious and rebelled against their human masters. Forgive the sarcasm but,
What are we talking about here?
1. Our government is made up of citizens. It cannot become tyrannical unless a majority of its citizens allow it to, in which case it is about 79 million armed citizens against about 79 million armed citizens and the U.S. military. In which case armed citizens just means more dead citizens.
2. Okay, maybe all of these nations combined could defeat the U.S. I kind of doubt it though at this time in history. Most countries depend on us for their military and we could cut off funding. Even if not, our fire power is borderline comical compared to the rest of the world... combined.
But, I doubt that if somehow these countries could and would want to invade the U.S. (ignoring there's nothing in it for them but a ruined world economy) if they could defeat all of the nuclear submarines, battleships, drones, fighter jets, etc etc etc, if they could do that, a bunch of citizens with guns isn't going to be much good. Just carpet bomb the states and then arm several billion Chinese to hunt the survivors down.
The whole line of thought is outlandish though. Meanwhile high capacity clips and semi-automatic weapons, along with a lack of resources to identify and treat the mentally ill, is leading to way, way more deaths than are necessary.
It cannot become tyrannical unless a majority of citizens allow it to
History shows that this is not true. For example:
The October revolution was done by a small minority that took the advantage. The majority of the population did not support the communists. Later, Stalin killed well over 15 million of his own people, who were banned from owning firearms.
Ancient Rome is a classic example. When the Republic was dissolved, Emperors took over. They used their armies without public consent to take over.
Franco's Spain was taken over by an army coup from Morrocco. The majority held with the Republicans, but they didn't have the same military power as Franco's forces. Franco then put down local insurrections and abused the minorities like the Catalonians and the Basques, who were not allowed to have firearms.
You also have the problem of having the majority take overs that then abuse or murder their rivals.
For example:
Nazi Germany. That was a majority led takeover. The government banned the "un-pure" of having firearms. That led to the easy disposal of the Jews. Now you have Jews for the Preservation of Firearms.
Also, why are semi-auto weapons and expanded magazines (not clips, that is a whole other argument) the problem? That's like blaming a spoon for making someone fat. It is a tool. People choose to do what they want with that tool. The majority that own this are law-abiding citizens, while the very small minority of criminals give it a bad name. It's like the punishing whole class by not going to recess because one person was being mean. The teacher would just punish that one kid, not the whole class! I feel like I'm a criminal when I am blamed because I have a gun just like the shooter's, yet they punish me for owning mine and not killing anyone with it. That is illogical.
None of your examples were helped or could have been helped in the least, even a little, by giving one group or another more guns, first of all.
Next, yes, semi-automatics and clips are part of the problem, because if people can't get them then less people die. Really. You gun nuts use the same broken arguments over and over.
"Well it wouldn't save everyone so don't do anything" or "uh spoon for fat... and uh what did the NRA tell me again."
Okay, some people might or might not get their hands on an illegal semi-automatic weapon with 30 clips. But that crazy kid who just shot up that school wouldn't have. If his mom didn't have an arsenal he might of had a shotgun or handgun, and only killed 2 or 3 kids before killing himself.
That's the point. Smart regulation along with efforts to identify mental illness will save real actual people, lots of them, every year.
But no, you're more concerned about shadow governments, your too filled with fear of god knows what, so you won't listen to reason.
You gun nuts are so out of touch and fucking religious about your dumb weapons, it makes everyone else say, "fuck these gun nuts then, they aren't dealing with reality."
So it's his mom's fault for being killed and him stealing her weapons? Let me give you an example.
Columbine. The man walked in with a weapon, during the middle of the Brady Bill. According to her bill, he shouldn't have been able to do that. But he did. He killed many people because he had over 20 clips and magazines with him. A criminal isn't just going to say "I can bring only one clip". If he can't bring one with more than 10 rounds, he will just bring more. Now I totally agree with the mental illness problem, that needs to be an issue, but not regulation. If we can reduce the number of mental people out there, than why wouldthey want to go out and kill people? Fix the problem, not the tool he misuses.
Yeah in part. It is the mom's fault for having guns lying around her psycho son could get a hold of. Which is why background checks should include whether you have crazy people living with you. If I have a crazy teen to young adult living with me, I sure as fuck make sure there is no way they can get their hands on a gun. I have no idea what she was thinking. Denial about her sons illness, maybe she thought she could get all Dirty Harry if he went nuts, but whatever she was thinking she was wrong. And it is very possible that this tragedy did not have to be as bad as it was if there were something in place to limit her firepower or make sure her son could not get a hold of those guns.
And you can't catch everyone, people fall through the cracks. The point is that less people will die with better regulation. That some will still die is inevitable, but less people dying is a good thing. And you can still have a gun, you can still hunt, if you're scared of government or whatever you can still be armed. There is nothing wrong with a balanced approach and trying to fix an obvious problem though.
I want to take a balanced approach, but the problem I run into are people who are too radical. I think that regulation in some areas may work, like better back-ground checks, but I don't think taking these away will work. The government did a study during the old Brady Bill and found out that crime in general DID go down, but violent crime with guns went up as well as school shootings. I don't want that to repeat. I think what contributed to it were the gun free zones. I think that arming teachers who are willing could prevent shootings. The only thing gun free zones do is disarm the teachers. In high school and elementary schools, students can't carry arms because they are too young, but teachers can. I think if they want to, they should be able to carry and protect against criminals who will just ignore the gun free zone anyway.
"I think that arming teachers who are willing could prevent shootings." We would have to train our teachers like Police Officers or Military personnel for this to be feasible. We’d have to pay for that training and there would need to be refresher courses and re-licensing periodically. If we didn't require training, the increased presence of firearms on school property would add to tensions between hormone-addled teenagers and teachers at their wit's end. Eventually, a disturbed student WILL bring a firearm to school. In the initial panic that would inevitably ensue, the potential for friendly-fire shootings would be significant. Yes, there would be a chance for someone to disable or kill the aggressor, but would more bullets be the best thing for that situation?
Let’s assume for a moment that the original gunman was taken down fairly quickly; there still remains the likelihood that the confusion and panic following such an event would create subsequent dangers. If an armed person is wounded or killed, a panicked student would be able to gain possession of a firearm and have the potential to make a bad situation much, much worse. If the student began firing the weapon, they might then be mistaken for an accomplice when in reality, they are terrified and fighting for their life.
To arm the public as you seem to wish to, we would need gun laws much like Switzerland; the Swiss have no standing army, but the majority of males between the ages of 20-30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. If such laws were enacted, I doubt very much Americans would see this as a boon to freedom.
If you have a trained teacher, then the worry about friendly fire is negligible. You don't need to train a teacher like the police or military. Every concealed carry holder is trained to know what is behind their target, and not to go in guns blazing like Rambo. 1 to the head 2 to the chest, or a dedicated pair to the chest reduces the risk of friendly fire as well as taking the assailant down.
Now, the problem of a student taking a firearm and being mistaken and shot is hard to imagine. Every student, including I, is taught to hide in the corner of the classroom. The teacher would then face the door with their weapon and if the shooter comes through, there is no risk to the students of being shot unless the shooter kills the teacher. If the teacher takes down the assailant, they have control of the situation and can take control of the shooter's weapon. A student isn't going to rush to the weapon and take it.
As for training the teachers, a lot of schools, gun schools, and other organizations have offered to teach teachers for free. And if we offer the training to teachers voluntarily, then the teacher may pay for it themselves or the school might do it for them. Re-licensing is cheap. Now, a teacher who is at their wit's end probably shouldn't have a firearm in the first place. That's when records and back-ground checks will come in. They will probably be more stringent than usual due to the situation, so they will be more effective. Now the chance of an angry student trying to take a weapon would also be negligible. The teacher won't be carrying it on their person at all times. Most teachers that are allowed weapons keep them in a handgun safe, or in a central school safe.
Friendly fire is always a concern where live ammunition is being discharged. And, I don’t know how you feel, but I would not let my child attend a school staffed by teachers who only possessed concealed-carry permits. Common sense would dictate that going in “like Rambo” is a horrible idea, but there’s no way to predict how someone might react under live-fire. A seasoned gun-man with years of experience could still have his judgment impaired when his life is in danger.
I understand that you’re taught to hide in the corner; I was as well. However, you cannot predict how certain individuals will react; this is a recurring flaw in your argument. Allowing teachers to carry weapons on school property allows for countless scenarios in which they are disabled, their weapon is lost, and a frightened individual could gain possession of that weapon.
The rest of your argument relies on the survival of faculty; something that cannot be guaranteed. As soon as one faculty member is killed, students in that classroom would most probably try and flee or gain control of a weapon. The only other option would be to face almost certain death at the barrel of the aggressor’s gun. This idealized scenario has little chance of fulfilling itself in reality.
As you said, a teacher at their wits end shouldn’t have a fire arm. But, the career of teaching is one that inherently has a great amount of stress that comes with it. A teacher with a clean back-ground check could actually have a mild emotional disturbance that is aggravated by the stress of being a teacher. The only measure that could be taken to combat this would be to require teachers to submit to compulsory psychiatric evaluations periodically, and that still leaves the possibility for someone to falsely represent their mental state.
The risk of allowing teachers to carry arms far outweighs any benefits.
I agree, friendly fire is always a concern. However, I still think that allowing the teacher to arm themselves is a better option than not letting them, and putting a sign in from staying no guns allowed which the shooter has never followed anyway. I also think that many people who own weapons have even more high-stress jobs than a teacher could. Private Security, Police, and construction are high stress environments. Now, I know you would say that the Private Security and Police have training. What I'm saying is the training given to teachers would make them just as capable handling a firearm as a police officer. Police even encourage training for concealed carry. They approve. And if a Faculty member is killed, then it is the same situation if the faculty member had no firearm at all. If a faculty memeber dies, then another must contain the situation, or a student may be able to also. I know there are a lot of risks, but there are risks for almost everything we do in life. I say arming teacher benefits outweigh the risk.
I agree that criminals aren't going to follow the law, however we shouldn't make it easier for them to access weapons.
Earlier I stated that teachers should be trained as if they were police-officers; you've almost agreed with me on that point. I would not want a teacher to be trained to the same level as average citizens; I would want them to be more capable with that responsibility. Simply possessing a concealed carry permit doesn't make someone a master-gunman; it takes an emotional fortitude and clarity of mind to assess and react to dangerous situations involving live fire.
How is a faculty member is killed and not having a fire-arm in the first place equitable in any way? If they had no fire-arm, and were killed, there would not be another fire-arm for the aggressor to use or for another student to obtain.
"If a faculty memeber dies, then another must contain the situation, or a student may be able to also." And now, you've condoned students trying to "contain" a situation that will very probably get them killed.
You may say the benefits outweigh the risk, but careful investigation would prove otherwise.
Now, the way most average citizens are trained is very good. To be able to have a concealed carry permit, you must pass a test done by the Police department. I think if the Police approve, the carrier is well trained. A teacher receiving the same training would be very good, and would be able to defend themselves and their students.
Now, I did say that a student may be able to control the situation. If he is being faced down by the shooter, any way the student can defend themself is justified, including picking up the weapon and firing back. What I disputed was that students who gained a weapon who were scared and over reacting would be a danger by running around and shooting. They absolutely can, but I don't see it happening. The way a school is controlled during a lockdown would prevent this from happening.
Your argument about not arming teachers because if the teacher is killed there is no weapon for the shooter to use is, I think, I little absurd. The shooter came prepared. Either way he is going to shoot and kill people. If a teacher is killed without a weapon, then the shooter just keeps going. If a teacher is killed that was armed, the shooter may pick it up. But either way he is still going to kill. I would rather have the opportunity of a good guy, be that a student or another teacher, to be able to pick up that gun and kill the assailant than letting the shooter just keep going.
So he can stand trial like any other American citizen; death does not restore life. Your blood-lust-attitude is the very reason we HAVE a justice system.
I can see that; you can't see that guns are tools made for killing. A person with a gun who stops an aggressor will likely kill that person, where there were viable non-lethal options. incapacitation, not termination, should be the goal.
Yes, we should have the right to carry firearms. The criminals will carry them even if it is illegal to carry them. The world will always have a black-market for weapons.
The United States is the only large, successful national power that allows this - it's in our bill of rights. It needs to stay. The price of such a right is this: less crime over-all, more fatal crimes, and of course, more fatal accidents. Yet, I don't want to live in a police state where ONLY the police and the army have weapons.
I will say this: people who own or carry guns need to be stable, mature, rational people. Of course, there is a lot of power in those who would be deciding WHO is psychologically sound enough to own and carry a weapon. Just know that the police have just as many accidents with weapons as the general public.
I disagree that guns protect US citizens from a police state. The US has the most powerful military in the world, and privately owned guns will not be able to stop it.
While Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, guns were virtually unregulated. The Iraqi regime had a much less powerful military than the US, and the citizens still didn't use their guns to give themselves freedom. Another example is Iran. There is an extremely oppressive government without much popular support, and many people own guns, yet the Iranian government is extremely stable.
Yes, in a world were universal and common threats exist for people, they should have the right to defend themselves from those threats.
Because its impossible to remove all the guns from the world, and passing laws restricting guns will only be followed by law abiding citizens. It's illogical to only disarm the citizens. (Which is basically all that law is capable of doing)
That's basically leaving the teeth in the mouth of the wolves and turning men into sheep.
So if you were to go completely insane, yet could only find a sword instead of a semi-automatic with 30+ clips, you'd go to time square and kill, what? 3, 4 people if you're like a samurai? 5 or 6 if you're a ninja?
Meanwhile in this Universe where you can go completely insane and get that semi-automatic, you'd go to time square and kill, what 10-15 people if you're half blind and have a bad knee? 20-30 people if you've ever seen anyone shoot a gun ever in your life? 40-50 people if you've actually practiced with that gun?
Fucking great! Where do I sign up for the first one?
I don't think so. I'd rather live in a society where one person can't "look at another person and press a button" and have that second person die. It's too much power for one person to have. Already in America you have to assume that every person around you packing heat and at any time could end your life (without you even knowing) at any time for any reason (their crazy, they don't like your shoes, you bump their car in a parking lot, you disagree with them on X, etc..) . Can't imagine anyone "designing" a civil society would want such a situation to be possible. Yes, I know someone could still stab you, etc, but they have to be next to you, get bloody and you have good chance of surviving. Also, knives have specific utility in the society (very high utility I might add) besides killing things.
Your argument is presented as a preference of how you would rather live, and that preference is based on fallacious logic that if a person can use something to kill you easily, no one should be allowed to have it.
So following your logic, we should not be allowed to have cars either, because at any moment, some one can drive on to a sidewalk and run you over.
It's true that other things in society can kill you but there are differences. A car has huge utility outside of running people over. This makes it impractical to even be considered as something to get rid of, so I don't.
While it's true that at any moment a random person could run you over, maybe resulting in death, that's just "bad luck". They could have chosen anyone, they chose me. However, the case I don't like is where for example I fire a bad employee and they decide to use their "kill button" to "settle the score". They could try and run me over but that is much much harder because, I have to be walking someplace that A car can easily reach, where I won't notice the car coming, etc. The ease of being able to kill a specific person (or a group of people) with a gun is much higher than with a car.
Your logic is still fallacious. If you remove all the guns in the world, then a person intent on murder would just use the next easiest thing to do it with.
Although the point is mute, because its impossible to remove all the guns in the world, we can still look at our past, when guns didn't exist yet, and people still went to war and murdered.
It's also silly to say that guns don't serve a purpose. They provide food for some people still to this day and they provide protection for others.
My mother was kidnapped when I was two and barely escaped with her life, she now legally carries a pistol at all times, as do I.
So again, lets show the fallacy of your logic, you now say a car is different because its harder to kill someone with it. Ok, well a knife is a universal tool needed for cutting and cooking, but yet it can be used to kill. It can actually be just as easy to kill, maybe even easier, because its quieter and easier to get than a gun. Should we ban all knives too?
A privilege maybe, but not a right unless you are part of a trained militia.
Why are things essential for functioning in modern society, like a car, a privilege, while something utterly unnecessary is considered a right? It's dumb.
The two most common arguments seem to be that firearms protect us from an oppressive government, and that people who want to will find a way to murder whether or not guns are legal. I will address both of these points separately.
First, firearms do not protect against a tyrannical government. The US makes up 40% of the international military spending. Privately owned guns are not going to stop it if it wants to take away rights. Also, there is no historical precedent of firearms creating more freedom. The US is the only developed country without strict gun laws. European countries are just as free, if not more free than the US.
Second, people who really want to murder somebody aren't going to be stopped, whether or not other people have guns. After some research, I can't find any solid examples of armed civilians stopping a shooter. There are possible examples, but I believe that most of them are too unclear to accurately determine whether the shooters would have killed more people. Also, murderers will find a way to kill people. Armed civilians won't stop them. I believe that people who spend time planning a murder will also plan how not to be shot while doing it. Finally, banning guns will stop the unplanned, spur-of-the-moment killlings. The people who are mad and pick up a gun to shoot someone won't be able to kill. The people who wake up and decide to rob a gas station won't be able to kill.
Another common pro-gun point is the Swiss and Israeli models of gun control. The common idea of Israel having extremely deregulated guns is an outright lie. Switzerland is more complicated, though. Every citizen has a gun, but they are not privately owned guns in the same way American guns are. Every Swiss who is able to work in the military is required to, and during their service, they get a single unloaded gun to keep at their house. The lack of mass shootings in Israel is the result of a crackdown on terrorism, and I'm not sure what causes a decreased number of shootings in Europe, but it is likely a mix between guns being less available and a culture that does more to deter shootings.
Luke Woodham goes into the school and kills two students and injures several others. The principal retrieves a .45 pistol from his truck and confronts Luke. Luke runs to his car to escape but is prevented by the principal, who holds Luke until police arrive.
In 2010, a man entered an AT&T;store in New York and started firing. A customer with a concealed carry drew their .40 revolver and shot and killed the shooter.
At the Clackamas mall in Portland, Oregon. A shooter with a rifle walks into the mall and opens fire and kills 2 people. A man with a concealed carry permit draws his weapon and confronts the shooter. When the shooter sees him, he turns the weapon on himself and commits suicide.
There are plenty more, you just need to look. I would like to address your points and offer my counter-points.
1.The US may have the best military, but that still does not give them the right to ban guns. If we rebelled because they did, they wouldn't be able to wipe is out. For a modern example, look at Syria and Libya. Both governments had jets, bombs, rockets, tanks, and more weapons than the citizens did. However, the Libyans won their war and the Syrians have the capital surrounded. Both governments have lost, to citizens with firearms. They can get rid of a tyrannical government.
2.Now, if guns are banned, they will still be used in crimes. Look at Britain, where it is illegal to carry a firearm, yet they are still used in crime. According to the law, the criminal shouldn't have one. But criminals don't follow laws. Also, the point you made on prevented mass shootings as not very good examples because it was not proved that the shooter might have killed more is wrong. The shooter didn't kill more because he was prevented! How can someone judge that he was going to kill more if he doesn't state so or is captured? He was either killed before he could murder more or was held by an armed citizen. The criminal can still buy a weapon if so chooses. However, he now has to buy it illegally, while the law-abiding citizen can't own one anymore. You now have a haven for the criminal.
people must not be given the right to carry fire arms because some people are irresponsible and can misuse it. You will walk around with the fear that your life might end at any time. at the moment people are reckless with things like cars and booze what more if you give them the right to carry firearms which are easy to use and dangerous
people must not be given the right to carry fire arms because some people are irresponsible and can misuse it. You will walk around with the fear that your life might end at any time. at the moment people are reckless with things like cars and booze what more if you give them the right to carry firearms which are easy to use and dangerous
people must not be given the right to carry fire arms because some people are irresponsible and can misuse it. You will walk around with the fear that your life might end at any time. at the moment people are reckless with things like cars and booze what more if you give them the right to carry firearms which are easy to use and dangerous
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.
