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.
There are many private uses for guns, farmers, professional feral animal hunters, sports events etc etc where the use of guns could be allowed under strict conditions.
The less weapons in society the less opportunity to use them for the wrong purpose
Firearm regulation only affects those willing to comply with the laws; I.E. those who are least likely to "use them for the wrong purpose" in the first place.
There are good, law abiding people who, nonetheless, should not own a gun. Certain regulations will reduce guns in the hands of innocent, though incapable would-be gun buyers.
Having strict prohibitions against certain people owning firearms (such as violent felons), and a requirement for professional sellers to check, allows society to add longer sentences to criminals who acquire guns through illegal means while regular citizens are relatively unaffected.
"There are good, law abiding people who, nonetheless, should not own a gun."
Based on what? Personal opinion?
"Having strict prohibitions against certain people owning firearms (such as violent felons), and a requirement for professional sellers to check, allows society to add longer sentences to criminals who acquire guns through illegal means while regular citizens are relatively unaffected."
That's an entirely reactive measure, which will affect absolutely nothing. An already violent felon with a history of criminal activity will receive an astronomical sentence for committing an armed crime anyway, regardless of extra years tacked on by your proposed regulations.
Furthermore, in the U.S., it's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm. To what other groups would "certain people" apply?
Some people are so developmentally delayed that they can never drive a car. They can't fully take care of themselves. Would you give a mentally handicapped person a gun? Should you be in some kind of trouble if you do?
That's an entirely reactive measure, which will affect absolutely nothing
Longer sentences are reactive sure, but they absolutely have an effect. When someone commits a crime, they can plead down. Gun laws can make that more difficult. For the law that is simply against the felon having a gun, he can be locked up just for having it, without having to commit some other crime as well.
in the U.S., it's already illegal for convicted felons to possess a firearm
Yeah, that's a regulation. It doesn't affect none felon law abiding people, which was my point in response to your original post in this thread.
"Some people are so developmentally delayed that they can never drive a car. They can't fully take care of themselves. Would you give a mentally handicapped person a gun? Should you be in some kind of trouble if you do?"
So, in your opinion, at what point of mental incapability should one's right to own a firearm be abolished? The APA has a long, disturbing history of disregarding evidence in favor of political orthodoxy when determining what constitutes a mental disorder. If, as you propose, "mentally handicapped" persons were to be unable to own a firearm, who's to stop the APA from deciding that following a particular religion or political party is a mental disorder?
" When someone commits a crime, they can plead down. Gun laws can make that more difficult."
You're talking about a previously convicted felon who's charged with another crime and found to have a firearm; first of all, "pleading down" would be nigh impossible without your proposed firearm laws (the specifics of which you have yet to provide), and second, the scope of these laws would be so narrow (I.E. increasing sentence times for multiple-convict felons) as to be pointless.
So, in your opinion, at what point of mental incapability should one's right to own a firearm be abolished?
The point is that there is a level of mental capability below which one should not have a firearm. My opinion on where that level should be does not impact the assertion that there should be a level. Would you give a .45 to a 5 year old? Probably not. Would you give a .45 to a man with the mind of a 5 year old? Maybe, but you shouldn't.
There are already laws relating to this. I am not proposing anything new.
If, as you propose, "mentally handicapped" persons were to be unable to own a firearm, who's to stop the APA from deciding that following a particular religion or political party is a mental disorder?
There are many important (non-firearm) aspects in life that are affected by having the label of mental disorder. What's to stop the APA from carrying out your fear right now?
You're talking about a previously convicted felon who's charged with another crime and found to have a firearm; first of all, "pleading down" would be nigh impossible without your proposed firearm laws (the specifics of which you have yet to provide), and second, the scope of these laws would be so narrow (I.E. increasing sentence times for multiple-convict felons) as to be pointless.
People (currently) plead down all the time, with all manner of crime. Gun laws (currently) assist prosecutors in seeking longer sentences than would otherwise result.
Again, I am not proposing anything. I am pointing out the flaw in your position that regulation only affects those willing to comply. A regulation that adds to punishment clearly affects only criminals. And it is not only criminals who should be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Okay Irish, let's take states and cities who have banned guns, California and Chicago. No guns allowed, violence is through the roof and worse than when guns were legal.
Ok American let's look at some real facts as opposed to your own personal mantra ......
But advocates for tougher restrictions say Trump’s and Christie’s arguments do not take into account two key features of the Chicago's gun landscape. The first is that, though it’s hard to get a gun in Chicago, it’s much easier to get one in the city’s immediate vicinity. The second feature is the city’s high level of gang activity, and that gangs are both adept at procuring guns illegally and prone to involvement in shooting incidents.
“I think that it’s more likely that if Chicago did not have tough gun laws they would have higher rates of gun violence than they do have,” said Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab, leading its multi-city underground gun market study.
Cook recently studied the origins of guns recovered in Chicago between 2009 and 2013 using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives. Of the more than 7,000 guns he studied, “the great majority came from the people who were members of gangs,” Cook said, adding that "the gang conflict in Chicago has been particularly lethal over the decades and part of the reason is those organizations are skilled at accessing guns."
A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said. Chicago gangs often have connections to gangs in Gary, Indiana, and the two cities almost butt up against each other.
The study also found that 22 percent of the recovered guns came from parts of Cook County outside the city, where gun dealers and gun shows are legal.
This post makes the pro-gun argument pretty well. How could any guns possibly cross state borders if it is illegal to transport weapons across state borders? Isn't that activity banned?
The idea of banning guns in the US always ignores the number of guns in the US (and the world) as well as the strength of a black market when it has the support of so many people (as it would here).
Also, the idea that any state is "not regulated at all" is laughable in it's inaccuracy. Sort of calls into question the professors other statements.
I thought that was what you were doing when you rephrased the debate as "is the introduction of guns beneficial to society" rather than "Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?"
Your conclusion is false, it is incorrect . Your failure to comptrehend what I stated and the way it was stated is lamentably predictable and seems to be the dying gasp of a sore loser .
I didn't wanna reply but just a few words. Lol stop feeding my what? Have you ever followed up on your donations(which i doubt). Anyway my family will be more satisfied if you used your insignificant pennies on fixing your brain(medical care) than giving it to us for just belly satisfaction.
And try to answer your questions well. Stop spinning like a dizzy cockroach hit with a mop(question).....
Should people not have the right to protect their family , their property and their self from someone wanting to do them harm ? Being a typical Leftist as you are will Government protect anyone from a criminal with a firearm ?
Do Americans have the right to defend themselves from foreign invasion by buying rocket launchers and military aircraft and if not why not , why stop at armed criminals which again is a gross exaggeration ?
The Republic of Ireland is the deadliest place to live in the Irish and British isles - startling new figures have confirmed.
An Independent.ie analysis of homicide rates over the last decade reveals that you are almost six times more likely to be shot and killed in the 26 counties as you are in England/Wales.
And, contrary to popular belief, the gun homicide rate in the Irish Republic was more than double that of Northern Ireland for the ten years from 2005 to 2015.
A top criminologist has now claimed "Ireland stands at the abyss" when it comes to violent murderous crimes generally and "specifically involving guns".
John O'Keeffe, Head of the School of Psychology & Criminology, City Colleges' Dublin, said An Garda Siochana has not been given the necessary tools to face dangerous crime gangs.
"Gang members know that if they are confronted by gardai they will almost certainly have the upper hand when it comes to firearms.
"Irish police have extendable batons and pepper spray - Irish criminals have Glochs and AK47's - there can only be one winner.
"Modern Irish criminals regard An Garda Siochana and their tools as play things - in the meantime, people get eviscerated in the cross fire generated by these gun toting savages."
Your ignorance has been exposed you Anti Gun NUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know we all live in a constant state of fear over here as gun crime takes a grip on society :)
Gun crime in the republic is carried out by criminals and ex paramilitaries who hold firearms illegally , and I like fellow citizens could not give a fuck if theses scumbags illiminate each other in their turf wars .......
Ireland’s homicide rate is broadly similar to its EU neighbours. It stands at about 1.1 per 100,000 citizens on an annual basis. This is slightly higher than the UK, with a homicide rate of 0.96 per 100,000. France is slightly higher again at 1.2 persons per 100,000. Ireland’s central statistics office states that a total of 1,068 Irish people died by homicide between 2004 and 2014.
Dublin boxing weigh-in shooting death linked to gangland feud
Read more
Within that statistic, however, there is a disturbing trend. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), approximately 38% of Ireland’s homicides are gun killings. In the UK, only 7% of homicides are by firearms. Ireland’s gun killings, on a per-capita basis, are around five times higher than most member states within the EU.
In an otherwise relatively peaceful society, it appears from these figures that a violent gun culture, associated with drug trafficking, has taken hold in disadvantaged areas in a number of Ireland’s cities.......
So if I'm anti gun how does that make me a nut ?
Also as I asked if guns improve society why are you making a case against them as in citing gun crime ?
Hilarious , you truly should not give commentary on something you don't comprehend so back to the question - Do Americans have the right to protect their family , their property and their self from armed criminals ?
So allowing guns in our society would improve it ? How ?
No citizen here would dare carry a gun as they are banned , only criminals obtain guns illegally , therefore gun crime over here involves criminals who destroy mostly each other which I could not give a fuck about as the ordinary citizens live in a mostly peaceful society .
You posted numbers that are directly related to gun crimes. Banning guns works in what ways ? Does not work for criminals so what is exactly the purpose for banning guns ?
Banning guns works because arming the citizens of any country is clearly a bad idea , I also stated that guns held by criminals are held illegally , ordinary citizens understand what a ban means and therefore do not buy firearms illegally , so the purpose is exactly what it says says and indeed does .
Its hilarious how many different ways you fail to miss each point , I don't even know what you're talking about anymore and I honestly don't think you do as you're making no sense at all .
Its hilarious how many different ways you fail to miss each point , I don't even know what you're talking about anymore and I honestly don't think you do as you're making no sense at all .
Its hilarious how many different ways you fail to miss each point , I don't even know what you're talking about anymore and I honestly don't think you do as you're making no sense at all .
It's hilarious that you cannot honestly answer this question as asked "Does an individual any individual not have the right to protect themselves , their family and their property from an armed intruder" ?
That is not the argument I was expecting at all. So , if we have 10 marbles in bag and I remove 3 marbles, the total amount of marbles was not reduced ?
And I can give you more but it is useless because it is not the point I am trying to defend.
I originally asked you to explain to me why I am wrong. All you did is ask me to show you banning guns reduces gun homicide. I gave an example. Then you changed subject.
Again you're totally missing the point because by ignoring the facts you think in some way aids your case , criminals are not the bulk of the population and they are the ones carrying out crime because they obtain guns illegally ; they carry out crime by using guns which you want everyone in society to have why ?
Citizens without guns are the reason my country is 12th in the world regards a peaceful society thus proving the point that unarmed citizens are indeed more conducive to a peaceful society than armed ones , unless of course you wish to argue that gun ownership make society more peaceful .....
Guns are not responsible for the violence in the U.S. The fact is we are violent by nature, we live war, we love fighting (not saying it's right) guns are simply a tool many use for violence. If there were no guns here it would be bats, knives, bars etc... It wouldn't stop it. Besides the reason we have the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government. And if anyone thinks that is not a possible issues in our time that's a fantasy utopia. If you know your history, the first step to placing a tyrannical government is to disarm the populace.
Guns are indeed partially responsible for violence as they are made for the sole purpose of causing injury ; yes humans are indeed violent by nature and yes guns are a tool used to gain the upper hand .
So are you suggesting if there were no guns were in circulation crime figures would be exactly the same only cared out by different weapons ?
Oddly enough this phenomenon is not prevelant in mostly gun free Europe as I don't see a spate of violence by people brandishing clubs , knives , bars , etc ,etc .
Are you honestly uggesting the reason the US does not have a tyrannical government is because the citizens are allowed own guns ?
Do you honestly think an unorganised mostly untrained population could even challenge a highly trained US military if your leader was indeed tyrannical ?
Well yes you are , what you claim as fact is merely just your opinion and lamentably typically American where otherwise sane people have this absurd relationship to the love of guns .
What you claim as fact is backed up by nothing except your opinion which is meaningless against available evidence which demonstrates your assertions are merely ill informed and smack of desperation on your part to make a point .....
From the Guardian .......
Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.
It has been two decades since rapid-fire long guns were banned in Australia, including those already in private ownership, and 19 years since the mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms by government at market price was introduced. A handgun buyback program was later introduced, in 2003.
It took one massacre: how Australia embraced gun control after Port Arthur
Read more
Researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University analysed data on intentional suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms from the National Injury Surveillance Unit, and intentional firearm death rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For the period after the 1996 reforms, rates of total homicides and suicides from all causes were also examined to consider whether people may have substituted guns for alternative means.
From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.
The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
The findings were published in the influential Journal of the American Medical Association on Thursday, days after the US Senate rejected a string of Republican and Democrat measures to restrict guns. The reforms were proposed in response to the deadliest mass shooting in US history, at an LGBTI nightclub in Orlando.
The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.
You really are a strange individual I think it's 6 times now you've been told that criminals get access to guns illegally , your solution seems to be to allow everyone including would be criminals easy access to guns by having no ban to make them more accessible because it would in some strange way known to you and a sizeable proportion of fellow Americans make society better .... oookay
I know it's really mean of us us to have a ban on guns as it makes it so hard on hard working criminals who have to struggle to get them illegally :)
"Do you honestly think an unorganised mostly untrained population could even challenge a highly trained US military if your leader was indeed tyrannical ?"
If the government was so bad that people needed to revolt, they would have the support of some leaders within the military. This is the way our revolts happen. It's how we revolted against the Brits, and it's how the South revolted against the North.
If it ever happened again, whomever is revolting would not have the same kind of access to weapons for arming those joining the revolt. Just as the 2nd Amendment recognizes, those people could already be armed.
If the government was so bad that people needed to revolt, they would have the support of some leaders within the military. This is the way our revolts happen. It's how we revolted against the Brits, and it's how the South revolted against the North.
If it ever happened again, whomever is revolting would not have the same kind of access to weapons for arming those joining the revolt. Just as the 2nd Amendment recognizes, those people could already be armed.
US culture is actually more violent than a lot of other developed nations. Our crime rates are higher across the board. But we have a culture legal gun ownership as well. Which means that trying to take guns away would turn law abiding citizen into criminals as they would refuse.
Violent society will find away. I'm thinking of Ireland in the 70s and 80s. Was it a perfect little war without guns?
The value of guns and gun ownership varies by geography and culture. Consider Switzerland. They have lots of guns and lots of peace. Now consider Syria. The point is that guns aren't the problem and there absence is not the solution.
My reference to perfection was in response to your statement about your country functioning perfectly.
Guns are not banned in most countries. That's a strange thing to say.
The question is not whether the introduction of guns would be good for society, society has guns. The question is whether they should be banned in the US, to which I would say no. The country would burn if you tried.
Some countries would likely do just as well with or without guns. Countries with low crime levels and a culture of peace are going to start shootings each other just because they have guns. They don't stab each other with readily available knives.
The problem with banning guns is that it doesn't actually eliminate them. It's just words. Words that need to be enforced at the point of a gun.
You do know when I say guns I'm talking about the carrying of handguns and not licences granted for sportsmen/ women and hunters , or is this the usual attempt to muddy the waters ?
The carrying and possession of handguns by the ordinary citizen is indeed banned in most countries .
How do you know the country would burn if guns were banned ?
It worked in Australia and it wasn't enforced at the end of a gun .
"How come even the police force in my country do not carry guns guns and yet the country functions perfectly ?"
How can I muddy the water by you not clarifying handgun when you say gun? Most guns are rifles and just as lethal. You think it's better where they tend carry AK rifles more than handguns? Nonetheless, it's still not the case that it's banned in most countries. It's a big world outside of Europe.
How do you know the country would burn if guns were banned ?
Because banning them would not get rid of them for one. And most law abiding citizens in the rural area (which are vast) have them and would fight to keep them. It's part of the culture. The right to defend yourself is taken seriously here. Especially where cops are half a county away.
It worked in Australia and it wasn't enforced at the end of a gun
It wasn't enforced at the point of a gun? So people who carry guns in Australia are arrested by cops just asking politely? If their culture is that peaceful, guns were never a problem.
Why is a 9mm in a rifle not as bad as a 9mm in a handgun?
How does a ban get criminals to give up their guns? Did banning drugs get rid of marijuana? No, it just made a black market for people to kill each other over. If we tell drug runners that they can no longer have guns OR run drugs, do you think they would stop doing both?
Yes I accept I used the word perfectly which is incorrect ( my apologies ) as no society functions perfectly .
Yes I'm glad you agree that's guns are lethal no matter the type which makes it all the more unbelievable that one thinks their inclusion in society is somehow beneficial , I don't think one finds many citizens walking down a Main Street with a rifle thus the mention of handguns .
Ok let's take a country with a population of over a billion China where ownership is prohibited ,maybe then move on to another large country like India prohibited , and we could do it all night and I think you will find that the majority of people worldwide are not allowed what Americans see as a right .
Banning them would indeed get rid of a fair proportion of them especially if the penalties for possession were severe , I find this right to protect oneself typically American and ridiculously over the top .
Ah so in Australia they enforced gun laws at the point of a gun , please tell me how this was done ax you seem remarkably well informed on the matter ?
The culture was not that peaceful when they had looser gun laws it is now though since sweeping changes came into being regarding gun law , proving guns were indeed a problem .
Why not do a bit of research instead of just inventing something to suit your narrative ?
Here we go again with the much loved rather lame defence by gun supporters as in how does a ban stop criminals getting guns , well for one it makes it more difficult for them or do you also dispute this ?
Also why are you so concerned about criminals with guns when mostly they slaughter each other do you honestly give a fuck ?
It's baffling to most people in gun free societies to watch an assortment of American politicians and media savvy individuals explain away the latest slaughter in an American school by a gun toting disgruntled employee , they scratch their collective heads in bewilderment at how this could possibly happen and blame everyone and everything but guns ,normally their commentary is finished with the hilarious ... guns don't kill people , people kill people .......
Bans don't work ? We banned cigarette smoking in pubs and restaurants over here 100 per cent effective so far , so your solution is ban nothing make all drugs legal to everyone and likewise guns ?
Why stop there why not allow citizens own missiles , bombs poisions just in case of threats from hostile forces ?
which makes it all the more unbelievable that one thinks their inclusion in society is somehow beneficial
Again, it’s not a question of whether or not guns are beneficial, it’s a question whether banning guns in the US is something that should be done. Many things are not beneficial, such as processed sugar or milk chocolate, but we wouldn’t ban them.
To make my point about countries and gun ownership, allow me to provide a source. Try it sometime.
Legal gun ownership does not correlate with homicide in the US. Gang land murders, the most common source of homicide by firearm, are committed with illegal weapons. Police are already trying to take them away from people. Usually these are people who are already banned from having a gun, and yet they have them.
Gun ownership is high in Switzerland, and the violent crime rate is low. This is because guns are not the source of the trouble, culture is.
Ah so in Australia they enforced gun laws at the point of a gun , please tell me how this was done as you seem remarkably well informed on the matter ?
Perhaps you suppose that when people illegally keep their guns, unarmed police just go and ask politely for them to give it up. It’s not a hard concept, laws are enforced at the point of a gun. There is an unspoken threat of violence if you do not comply with laws.
It's baffling to most people in gun free societies to watch an assortment of American politicians and media savvy individuals explain away the latest slaughter
I'm well aware of what Wikipedia says regarding guns and gun ownership and the sarcasm is also noted if it feels good for you well go for it :)
Yes it is a question of whether guns are beneficial for society or if they are not ; the sugar milk chocolate defence is ludicrous and I think you know that .
As I've said before legal gun ownership in most countries is down to people owning guns for hunting and sports , most countries do in fact ban the carrying of hand guns a fact you neatly sidestep .
You're incorrect yet again legal gun ownership,in America is indeed responsible for a fair amount of deaths through accident , suicide and children accidentally getting their hands on guns .
The figures are quiet shocking for these categories alone or maybe you want some stats if so just ask .
Ah so culture is the problem as guns are not the source of the trouble , really ?
So what about the accidental deaths , suicides , or children getting their hands on guns ?
Rather strange assessment you have of the Australian model please tell me how the police took guns back at gunpoint if they didn't know who held guns ?
As far as I know people holding guns illegally do not broadcast this information to the police .
Your last point proves what ? I think you may be right to leave it there :)
I'm well aware of what Wikipedia says regarding guns and gun ownership
That’s nice. They were cited in support of my position. Your argument would be served by a rebuttal.
As I've said before legal gun ownership in most countries is down to people owning guns for hunting and sports , most countries do in fact ban the carrying of hand guns a fact you neatly sidestep
This is not a sidestep. This debate concerns the banning of firearms, something you said most countries do, though in fact they don’t.
Yes it is a question of whether guns are beneficial for society or if they are not ; the sugar milk chocolate defence is ludicrous and I think you know that
No it isn’t. The debate title is literally “Should the use of guns be prohibited in America?”. The benefit, or lack thereof, in introducing guns to society is moot. Guns are already here. The question is should they be banned. You probably don’t know this, but failing to address legitimate opposition to your view actually hurts your argument. I’ll refer back to this often, I think.
Ah so culture is the problem as guns are not the source of the trouble , really? So what about the accidental deaths , suicides , or children getting their hands on guns ?
Indeed, the majority of gun deaths are from suicide rather than homicide. Suicide is most certainly not a gun issue as there are so many easy ways to accomplish it with guns being only one among them. As for the hazard to children, I think we ought to focus on the real dangers within the home, swimming pools. Personal swimming pools in the home kill more children than do personal firearms.
As for culture, if you compare homicide rates of various states, you will find that some have high rates with high levels of gun regulations, while others have relatively low rates with with relatively high levels of regulation. Conversely you will find some states with low homicide rates and low level regulation, and some with high homicide rates and low level regulation. This is because these rates are not correlated at all to gun ownership.
You're incorrect yet again legal gun ownership,in America is indeed responsible for a fair amount of deaths through accident , suicide and children accidentally getting their hands on guns
Legal gun ownership is responsible for a certain amount of accidental death of children, pools are responsible for more. Legal gun ownership is the most popular method of suicide, but that doesn’t explain why the suicide rate itself is so high. I you remove guns as an option, suicidal people will resort to another option. And the U.S. would still have higher than normal suicide rates.
Rather strange assessment you have of the Australian model please tell me how the police took guns back at gunpoint if they didn't know who held guns ? As far as I know people holding guns illegally do not broadcast this information to the police
Right, so when the cops find out that someone has a gun illegally, they go and get it. They don’t go unarmed when they do so. “All major police forces in Europe, as well as the US, Canada and Australia routinelycarry firearms, says Prof Peter Waddington. The exceptions are Britain, the Irish Republic, and New Zealand. In Norway officers carry arms in their cars but not on their person, he says.”
Your last point proves what ? I think you may be right to leave it there
I thought you might be able to read a table, I may have been wrong. You talked about the supposed American problem of mass shootings. I provided a table that puts the US at 6th, with the 5 countries ahead of it all being countries with restrictive gun laws and Norway dwarfing all others with its rampage shooter problem. You are likely correct in not attempting to refute my points, but again, it doesn’t help your argument.
Re -read what I said in my previous post about worldwide gun ownership as you seem to ignore what suits you .
Wrong again this debate is about gun ownership in the US this is you re - phrasing the question to force your point .
Again you say my point is moot so failing to address legitimate opposition to your view hurts your argument .
There may be so many easy ways to accomplish suicide but a gun is the easy option making it a gun issue which you're merely trying to avoid ; no we shouldn't focus on the real issues in the home as the debate is about guns so using your logic this makes yetvanother of your points moot .
And sadly you finish with yet another list to support a very weak argument .
Swimming pools deaths are again not the topic of debate fascinating and all as it is , you also fail to mention injuries by guns and also how do you know people will find another way to commit suicide ?
I actually talked about school shootings as well as mass shootings so is that really your defence ?
If a country has a higher level of mass or school shootings guns should not be banned in the US ?
Why ? When you totally ignore or avoid answering what I've said on this matter ?
No , the debate concerns the banning of firearms in the US ...
Ok , stick to the question as asked then failing to do so hurts your argument .
Suicide by gun is indeed a gun issue or are you missing something here ?
Hint : it's by gun making it a gun issue .
No we shouldn't focus on the 'real issues ' in the home as you constantly keep saying it's about guns American society ... remember ?
The list is meaningless remember what the debate actually asks ?
You thought I may be able to read a table ?
If you claim you may have been wrong why post it up ?
I thought you might be able to comprehend what the question asked but I was wrong as you seem to think yet again it's about where the US ranks in a list whys that ?
I will print up this list for you and am hoping you can read it if not get an adult to assist you and I do because you're so fond of lists :)
Guardian news
How school killings in the US stack up against 36 other countries put together
Simone Foxman December 14, 2012
The US has as many school killings with multiple deaths as 36 other countries combined
A mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, has—as of the most recent police statements—resulted in the deaths of 27 people, including the gunman. Twenty of those victims were children.
The Academy for Critical Incident Analysis at John Jay College has collected data, compiled from news reports, on 294 attempted or actual multiple killings on school grounds that had two or more victims. The data span 38 countries and nearly 250 years, from 1764 to 2010, and do not include “single homicides, off-campus homicides, killings caused by government actions, militaries, terrorists or militants.”
We tried to limit any effects of possible underreporting of cases by limiting the data set to the most recent ten years of data, between 2000 and 2010, and by counting only incidents in which someone was injured or killed. (Limiting the data to 2000 or after also eliminated one country that no longer exists: Austria-Hungary.)
The results are above. The number of such incidents in the US was only one less than in all the other 36 countries put together. In 13 of those countries there were no incidents at all, either actual or attempted.
In 2010, the US was home to a population of approximately 309 million. The populations of these other countries totaled 3.8 billion.
It seems you started to write a response, but instead vomited on your keyboard in a way that helps my argument. Cheap, but fortuitous.
Why ? When you totally ignore or avoid answering what I've said on this matter ?
I’m assuming the “why” was in response to my request that you actually debate. I haven’t ignored what you’ve had to say, it just never included any substance. If I am wrong, I am sure you can copy and paste something you said that mattered and I will responded to it.
Re -read what I said in my previous post about worldwide gun ownership as you seem to ignore what suits you
Most of what you actually said appears to have been typed by a retarded monkey. I am not going to re-read your stupid shit in the hopes of finding a gem. Copy and paste it.
Wrong again this debate is about gun ownership in the US this is you re - phrasing the question to force your point
When I literally copied and pasted the title of the debate, that was the opposite of re-phrasing the question. Go ask your helper.
Again you say my point is moot so failing to address legitimate opposition to your view hurts your argument
We aren’t deciding whether to introduce guns as you pretend. We are deciding whether to ban them. I’ll just refer you to the topic title rather than pasting it here. Also, using my line because you are too unoriginal actually make you look about as smart as Dermot.
There may be so many easy ways to accomplish suicide but a gun is the easy option making it a gun issue which you're merely trying to avoid
Suicide itself is done in a number of ways. It is a mental health issue. If a person is going to hang themselves, but they can’t find a rope, they will find another way to do it. This applies to guns as well. If you take away one means, another will be sought. That’s because the means is not the issue, the goal (suicide) is the issue.
As for injury and accident by gun, the rate of this was much higher before the introduction of Hunters Safety Course as a requirement to get a hunting license. A near elimination of what used to be a real problem is a success story for education.
I actually talked about school shootings as well as mass shootings so is that really your defence?
School shootings are merely a specific kind of mass shooting. Cherry picking gun violence would have worked better for you if you focused on Gang violence, as I am sure the US well above and beyond other nations. Nonetheless, it would have still been cherry picking. You can focus on school shootings and say how bad it is, perhaps I’ll focus on office building shootings to appear to minimize the problem. We would both be cherry picking.
If a country has a higher level of mass or school shootings guns should not be banned in the US ?
If another country has a high rate of mass shootings and they have very tight restrictions on firearms, then my point is made. Guns are not the issue. Violence finds a way, even gun violence.
No , the debate concerns the banning of firearms in the US ...
Ok , stick to the question as asked then failing to do so hurts your argument .
Suicide by gun is indeed a gun issue or are you missing something here ?
Most of this appears to be your vomit issue. I address the suicide aspect earlier in this post.
I thought you might be able to comprehend what the question asked but I was wrong as you seem to think yet again it's about where the US ranks in a list whys that ?
Your failure to utilize basic of analysis necessary to comprehend the relevance of sources to subjects is not a reason to forego the use of sources. If I show US states by legal gun ownership, and then show US states by violent crime, you can see that there is no correlation or (in some cases) negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. I know this might all seem irrelevant to the subject from your perspective, but your stupidity is not my problem.
As for your cherry-picked comparisons of school shootings by nation, school shootings are rare, albeit tragic, events. I’m not sure why you think this means guns should be banned. Illicit drugs kills more kids than guns do, and they are banned. In fact, youth deaths have only gotten worse as drug laws have grown. Alcohol kills more kids than guns do, but no one wants alcohol prohibition. Why the inconsistency?
Gun ownership and gun deaths negatively correlate over time. According to Dept. of Justice statistics, from 1993 to 2011, gun homicide decreased 39% while nonfatal firearm crimes decreased 69%. During the same time period, guns sales increased nationally. Rare events notwithstanding.
As I suspected you're just another pig ignorant gun toting halfwit ; everything you've typed so far displays the ramblings of a crack addled dimwit called Amarel ....go fuck yourself retard
No , I merely told the truth you bragged yesterday about going shopping carrying a weapon ( gun toting ) for self protection and somehow think this is something deserves admiration ; you then went on to display the intellectual level of a retard so in actual fact I'm probably doing retards a disservice :)
Incidentally If your tactic in addressing points I raise is hurling insults then that's what you get back you retard .
I merely told the truth you bragged yesterday about going shopping carrying a weapon
Would it make a difference if I am a cop?
If your tactic in addressing points I raise is hurling insults then that's what you get back you retard
Anyone who can thoroughly comprehend what they read (this likely excludes you) can see that I address your points with insults AND counter-points. You are heavy on the insults and absent on the counter-points.
No that makes it more scary as you've demonstrated a total lack of control by ' firing ' off the first insults .
Ah I see insults and counter points and they let people like you wear a uniform and carry a gun ...
Again you display your brute ignorance by claiming I was heavy on the insults when you laced a thread with insult before I resorted to your low tactic ; my absent counter - points certainly upset you as you're clearly upset .... go for a beer ...or something :)
I didn't say I am a cop, I asked if it would make a difference to make a point. It wouldn't matter to you how much training and familiarity I have, it's still a problem because of how you feel about guns. If I were a cop (something that should make carrying a gun rather appropriate), you think it would be even worse because of how you feel about me. My point is that your opinion is driven by your feelings.
Would it make a difference if I were a professor? No. You would still feel that I am a knuckle dragger. You would still feel that I am too dumb to responsibly handle a firearm. That's why you didn't address any of the point made around the fact that I carry. Only that I carry, and that it is bad.
If you were a cop makes no difference , the majority of our police force here do not carry guns and I've spent time in the states and an armed cop,is totally alien to me .
My opinion is driven by feelings towards people carrying a lethal weapon in public what's unusual about that ?
If you were a professor I would feel exactly the same way so your point is ?
Whether you are responsible or not cannot be measured your police force have claimed the same yet now and then do the complete opposite to what they claim
The point is that your entire argument is based on emotion rather than reason. It's worse because, as you've just said, it's emotion based on something that you have no practical experience with. Ignorance breeds fear. what's more, you are willing to argue for laws concerning things you have no knowledge of for people who do have knowledge.
The point about the professor is the same. You don't care what my knowledge, skill, or level of intelligence is. You only feel that guns are bad and so I must be bad or stupid to carry one.
Yes you must be right that's the reason people here including cops don't carry guns , because the decision is based on emotion .
You say I've no practical experience with guns and you base this on what ?
Ignorance breeds fear indeed , knowledge also leads to awareness something you seem to lack as you've been brought up in a gun mad culture ; I've seen both sides .
No wrong again , a fair proportion of your people have no knowledge when it comes to the implications of guns in society as they continuiosly look for scapegoats to blame when yet another school shooting , rampage killing or a fucked up cop shooting yet another innocent human happens ......
But the usual ridiculous mantra is trotted out by gun nuts who collectively chant ' guns don't kill people , people kill people '
Yes you must be right that's the reason people here including cops don't carry guns , because the decision is based on emotion
I haven’t even implied that your emotional basis for argumentation against American gun ownership affected Ireland’s gun laws.
Ignorance breeds fear indeed , knowledge also leads to awareness something you seem to lack as you've been brought up in a gun mad culture ; I've seen both sides
Spending time in the US is not the same as seeing both sides. You acknowledged that seeing a cop with a gun is alien to you. This is indicative of your ignorance that I refer to. Now you claim knowledge, but since you haven’t displayed any, I remain skeptical.
You say that I have been brought up in a gun mad culture as if this dubious description would disqualify my opinion concerning guns. You seem to think that coming up in a relatively gun free culture in a tiny country automatically qualifies your opinion about guns in a foreign culture of a huge country.
a fair proportion of your people have no knowledge when it comes to the implications of guns in society as they continuiosly look for scapegoats to blame when yet another school shooting , rampage killing or a fucked up cop shooting yet another innocent human happens
1.School shootings happen in gun free societies. 2. So do rampage killings. 3. Cops almost never shoot innocent people as case after case has shown when the smoke clears.
I know you didn't but you also assumed I had no knowledge of guns or experience with them .
Not seeing a cop with a gun is not ignorance you really need to look at the definition of terms before replying , spending time in the US is indeed seeing both sides why would you think not as I've American friends on both sides of the fence regarding guns .
I hadn't displayed any knowledge of guns , true , neither have you as we haven't talk about the finer points of guns or different types etc etc , did you want to ?
Yes your culture is gun mad and and Tell me is it only Americans can speak of guns in their country ?
Americans seem to think growing up in a large country gives them a right to dictate foreign policy in a fair amount of foreign countries so how's that different ?
But we are talking about the US I thought ?
Cops almost never shoot innocent people , really ?
spending time in the US is indeed seeing both sides
If I were to visit Saudi Arabia, I could not then claim to understand Muslim culture from the outside and the inside. If, after visiting, the call to prayer was something I had never witnessed, then I would have visited but remained almost completely ignorant of Saudi Muslim culture.
Yes your culture is gun mad and and Tell me is it only Americans can speak of guns in their country ?
I would not assert that the person who grew up in "Muslim mad" Saudi Arabia somehow lacks insight into the effects of Islam on a society. I would however, recognize that his insights may hold more weight than mine given his immersion in a social phenomenon that I am relatively distant from.
Americans seem to think growing up in a large country gives them a right to dictate foreign policy in a fair amount of foreign countries so how's that different ?
Managing the affairs of a large country and sharing physical borders with other countries would be quite different than managing the affairs of an island the size of Maine. One cannot reasonably assume that what works for Ireland will thus work for the US. And that only accounts for geographic differences, let alone cultural/societal/historical differences.
But we are talking about the US I thought ?
Cops almost never shoot innocent people , really ?
They still shoot some don't they ?
We are talking about the US. But if your argument is that guns should be banned because of X, but X occurs in places where guns are banned, then your logic is flawed.
Yes, cops almost never shoot innocent people. Yes, almost never is not the same as never. Airplanes almost never crash, it's a rare event. When it happens it's tragic, but it almost never happens.
Now that you've nitpicked the superficial aspects of what I have said, care to debate the points that are actually relevant to the subject?
What a jump from an English speaking nation to one with a totally different language culture and customs , I don't buy it .
If your insights hold more weight as you say that's merely your opinion , how do they hold more weight ?
No , my argument is guns should be banned in the US because guns are lethal weapons and that's it , I thought I made my position quiet clear as to the whys
My insights hold more weight because of the validity of my arguments. I'm able to make valid arguments because of my insight. I can only assume your lack of insight is the reason you can't address any point I make.
When I said I carry, I made a number of points surrounding that circumstance. Rather than argue against points, you saw that I carry and found cause to hurl insults. This is the way emotionalism typically expresses in debate. It makes you feel better, but it wins no arguments.
I addressed every point you made because you fail to comprehend what I wrote may be due to a lack of .... insight on your part .
Again the first tirade of insults which were quiet nasty came from you so thank you for admitting you resorted to emotionalism first and felt the need to express yourself that way ( please re -read your initial and first emotional outburst )
It obviously made you get upset and yes it did not help you win any arguments..... good effort no cigar :)
I insulted you to push your squishy little buttons. It's effective on people with emotional arguments because it further degrades their already limited faculties. You haven't made points that I have. It addressed. I went back and made sure. Even so, we can take it one step at a time.
guns should be banned in the US because guns are lethal weapons and that's it
This position applies equally to martial arts and the military, no?
I accuse you of emotionalism because of the nature of your argument. "I wanna ban guns because they are lethal". Well I wanna ban guns in the military because they are lethal. Why should the military have guns?
Martial arts are used to cause pain. Why wouldn't you ban martial arts? Is Marksmanship is used as a sporting discipline, but that's not sufficient to not ban it.
Some martial artists beat people up, not most. But banning martial arts is concerned with safety and well being, so by your logic it should be banned.
Similarly, the military shouldn't carry guns, as guns are meant to kill people. I'm simply applying your supposed logic consistently.
I literally posted a response to everything you posted that resembled a point. Your response is indicative of your consistent debate style throughout the conversation.
Your debating style is to muddy the waters we are still talking about guns yet you for some reason you keep rambling on about martial artists , the army etc ,etc whys that ?
"Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions."
You want to ban X for reason Y. By applying reason Y to Z (a variable you don't have the same emotional regard for) I prove the flaw in your logic.
The harm that guns can potentially cause is not a reason to ban them. If it were, we would ban other things as well, such as alcohol. Furthermore, the fact that guns can kill people is the reason the military has them. It's the same reason some private citizens have them. You wouldn't take guns away from the military because a country would then be helpless against those who are armed. For the same reason, you do not disarm a reasonable, law abiding citizen.
Wrong yet again your engaged in fallacious argumentation as in attempting to constantly muddy the waters as in using Red Herrings .....
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
The harm that guns can and do cause harm is indeed a valid argument whether you say it's not is immaterial and here you go again with more red herrings as in alchohol and the military .
I’m not surprised that you would confuse logical consistency with logical fallacy. I’m going to explain something about logic to you. I don’t expect you to understand, but at least this way you can’t say you were never told.
Logic is about the structure of the argument. This means that you can create formulas wherein, so long as the values are true, they are interchangeable. (If A then B and if B then C therefore, if A then C). This logical structure applies to all reality, regardless of the variables.
So when I reference alcohol, martial arts, and the military, it is not designed to divert attention away from the subject, but rather to bring attention to flaws in your logical structure as applied to the subject at hand.
You have stated variously that “guns should be banned in the US because guns are lethal weapons” and that you wish to ban guns because you’re “concerned with saving human lives”. If these are valid reasons for a ban then your logical formula is (If a thing is a lethal weapon, then it should be banned) and (If banning a thing saves human lives, then it should be banned). Well, guns are lethal weapons even (especially) in the hands of the military. Does the logic apply? Alcohol takes human lives, is a ban to save human lives not logically consistent here? Martial arts can be developed to such an extent that the skill makes the person a lethal weapon. Should this transformation not be banned?
Your eagerness to call these example fallacious rather than address your own flawed logic is expected from one whose foundation for debate is how they feel about a thing.
This logical form, which uses your own poor reasoning against you, does not even consider the practicality or feasibility of actually banning guns in the US. Another point that, if you ever addressed it, would be in my favor. Though in the end we don’t need to go there. Your terrible argumentation serves my position well enough as it is.
I don’t expect you to be able to grasp the truth of what I have just posted. I expect that at this point, even if you were normally capable, you would be to emotionally agitated to submit to reason.
Oh dear , what an inflated ego you just want to hear yourself now as I've no desire to hear you hold forth on something you have yet to display namely ... logic , you got sore when challenged and went into an abusive rant and then went on to accuse me of ' emotionalism ' thus accusing me of your outburst ?
Here you go again you attempt to teach me 'logical ' thinking after I pointed out yet another of your many red herrings .
Bleating ad nauseum about martial artists and alcohol are lamentably your last pathetic refuge and my initial statement which you barred as ' being off topic ' was indeed the nub of my argument and very tellingly you've still no ' logical ' reply .
I asked are guns beneficial for societies ?
Again this question is possibly beyond your capabilities and no doubt may induce yet another ' hissy fit '
Look at that, not one point. Not one counter-point. Just like always.
I have addressed the “are guns beneficial” question, though you predictably ignored whatever small part you may have understood. Nonetheless, I’ll provide a more in depth response to this question. Since you can’t take in a lot of info at once, the short answer is yes. You can stop now big guy.
To know if guns are beneficial to society, you must imagine a world without them. A world where guns have either never existed, or a world where guns magically disappear.
When there was a world in which guns didn’t exist, it sucked. We live in the most peaceful time in history. A world which was shaped and is being shaped in part by guns. See here:
I know that your response will be a non-response. I posted this simply so that I don’t appear as intellectually lazy as you to anyone who may be following this thread. But to summarize, yes. Guns are beneficial to society. They are beneficial to the individual and they are beneficial to the rise of nations.
You actually said I was off topic when I asked were guns beneficial for society but your goldfish memory has forgotten this already proving what a dimwit you truly are ; you're now saying guns are good for society after saying they were bad for society proving you are a liar as well as a stupid one , proving you in actual cannot take in and retain anything at all as is the nature of one who has a goldfish memory .
Here is what you said originally ......you liar
Are guns good for societies as if so how do they improve society ?
Guns aren't good for society (outside of legit hunters needs) any more than fighting is good for society. If you asked me if fighting is good for society I would say "no" while recognizing the value in being able to fight.
Ouch ( I hate that ) caught in your lies big guy
Your new red herring as in a ' once upon a time in a world with out guns ' is more predictable nonsense , you admit that one even has pictures which shows the sort of idiots who put together these nonsensical pieces .
Here is something that I would say is beyond you so get a group of adults to talk you through it ....
This is funny. After crying that I haven't adressed your supposed points, and then only coming up with one point (an unrelated one), you went back and quoted one of the several places where I addressed it! Haha.
What do I say in that post? Fighting is bad but being able to fight is good? Is that so different from saying guns aren't good but that a world without them is worse? Shooting guns as people is bad but being able to is good. Talk softly but carry a big stick.
I'm beginning to loose the joy in verbally crushing you. There's no bragging rights to it. It's like beating a child in the special olympics.
The closest you ever came to making an argument was posting an article that talked about things I already addressed. So I guess for that you get a passing C- for effort.
If you ever actually make a point, maybe I'll address it.
I never cried , I proved that you're a two faced liar with the mental capacity of a slack jawed yokel ; so you've beaten children in the special Olympics before ?
Now the retard tries to say how guns are beneficial but not beneficial ... blah ,blah ,blah
Well done spastic glad to see my donations to the special Olympics are bearing fruit :)
Ah I see no arguments yet again because you addressed all my points , yes I know as in your beauty of a theory .....guns are beneficial but not beneficial for society ....
Maybe you should stick to pro gun sites , flat earth and holocaust denial sites ... I think you might find kindred souls there just as skull fucked as you :)
On the contrary, you haven't addressed even one. The best you've done is taken what I've said to you, and said something similar to me, as with the above quote.
Your failure to comprehend simple English is entirely your problem and I'm afraid I cannot assist you there , also you seem to have difficulty with comprehending simple concepts which is again something I cannot assist you with .
I've made points , your failure to address them is not my problem you also asked me to stick to the question as posed when I attempted to widen the debate and now you berate for not asking more questions regarding the topic ?
I've posted responses to the few points made and you never got back to me. You went on to fail to address my points and counter-points. Mostly you just say over and over "I made points".
Your expansion was whether guns would be beneficial to introduce when the question is whether they should be banned. Should alcohol be introduced to a society? Probably not, but we have alcohol now, so should we ban it? No.
See what I did there? That's called making a point.
Yes I did get back to you and I believe I answered most your points that's why you have arrempted answers to them if youbactuallread what you wrote , also you got rather annoyed when I tried to broaden the topic .
Again I'm not talking about alchohol I'm talking about guns .... see what I did there it's called dismissing yet another of your red herrings , we are not talking about martial artists , the army or indeed alchohol why do you keep changing the subject ?
I ask these question many times of pro gun people ........
Are guns good for societies as if so how do they improve society ?
Guns aren't good for society (outside of legit hunters needs) any more than fighting is good for society. If you asked me if fighting is good for society I would say "no" while recognizing the value in being able to fight.
Ah i I see , what an incredibly strong argument :) you call anyone who disagrees with you a fool whilst demonstrating admirably the qualities of a prize fool ; get back to me when you have an actual point to make ?
Don't worry, I won't be getting back to fools who think they have a right to take our freedoms from us. They are a complete waste of time to debate, because like you, they never address the rebuttals, and live in thier selfish arrogant elitist worlds whereby they can tell everyone else what we can and can't own.
Keep drinking that alcohol. Gee, I wonder why Republicans are not trying to ban your alcohol?
Well yes people like you don't deserve freedoms as your first statement clearly demonstrates the fact that there's a good betting chance you're a knuckle dragging , slack jawed gun toting yokel who clearly should not be let anywhere near a gun drunk or sober.
Republicans are not trying to ban my alcohol you idiotic creature because suprisingly republicans have no political influence in my country ....
You're far to dimwitted to be arrogant but you have demonstrated a remarkable propensity for stupidity :)
Getting banned from anything you post would be a pleasure because everything you post is void of implication ; I often wonder how clowns like you get through a day it's quiet remarkable really .....
I agree. Even if guns were banned, criminals would break the laws and still use guns. Some people test out guns on YouTube, and that’s their hole purpose on YouTube. Guns shouldn’t be banned, because some people on YouTube will be sad.
The use of guns in America should be prohibited at least in urban areas. There is no logical reason to state that you need a firearm in an urban setting. If you say you need firearms to protect you and your family that is law enforcement job, regardless of their current capability to do so. If you say that it is to protect yourself from "tyranny" or some such government, do you honestly expect that in the 21st century a government set up like America's would be able to become an all-powerful malevolent state? Additionally America's military is the most sophisticated in the modern world so if you were to face them you wouldn't stand a chance regardless of how heavily civilians are armed. (For those of you who would then say that the military would help you fight tyranny, then why would civilians need guns?).
From a moral perspective saying that only a few "bad apples" give the rest of the gun owning population a bad name and that the good ones should keep their weapons immediately put value to the lives lost via the countless shootings in America (the live of fellow human beings are less important than your personal desires) and therefore very selfish.
It is not the job of police to protect you. They can't do it. They are almost always too far away. It is thier job to find who attacked you and bring them to a judge.
You think it's moral to take a gun away from a law abiding citizen, leaving them at the mercy criminals carrying illegally, just because of your selfish desires? Your morality sounds twisted. Most shootings don't happen at the hands of legal gun owners. I mean really very few. More deaths are caused by legal trampolines. Do you wanna get on a moral high horse to ban trampolines?
No if the police were to do their jobs in situational crime prevention properly then civilians would be protected from all forms in all arenas of crime, you say it's not the job of the police to "protect you", but forgive me if i'm wrong but the official motto of the US police academy is "To Protect and to Serve". That might possibly mean that they intend to protect, if they are almost always too far away then, again, they aren't doing their jobs properly.
I never said to take away weapons from all the population only those in urban areas for reasons I have mentioned. Its always the way with the "If you take away our guns we'll get shot at by criminals!" argument that you COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police wont just stop when they get all the legal registered guns, they'll go after the illegal guns and gun rings more than anything else. You say most shootings don't happen in the hands of legal gun owners, it doesn't matter if they are legal or not the murder is still being carried out via guns therefore they should be prohibited accordingly.
The trampoline analogy is a bit stupid as they are toys which have had their health and safety elements removed (side netting) and aren't actual weapons designed originally as a means of waging war. My morality is not off for wanting to take away guns from a relatively stupid modernized population (14th), but i'd be interested to hear what moral doctrine you follow.
No if the police were to do their jobs in situational crime prevention properly then civilians would be protected from all forms in all arenas of crime
This statement reflects a total disconnect from reality. Under what conditions do you imagine Police can stop a mugger who picks targets of opportunity who are chosen at random? How should police prevent a domestic violence within the privacy of one’s home? The list of situations wherein your expectations are fanciful is endless.
you say it's not the job of the police to "protect you", but forgive me if i'm wrong but the official motto of the US police academy is "To Protect and to Serve"
No it’s not the official motto. It was a motto of the LAPD and it became popular nationwide. The meaning of the motto is certainly open to interpretation. Nonetheless, police will strive to protect those around them and those nearby, but there’s not a cop in every livingroom. There’s not a cop in every facet of everyone’s life. The protection of your life is your responsibility, the police will assist.
There is no “US Police Academy”. Our various states have varying laws.
if they are almost always too far away then, again, they aren't doing their jobs properly
How would you propose this problem of space and time be resolved? How can we make police more omnipresent?
I never said to take away weapons from all the population only those in urban areas
Is a city dweller less trustworthy with a legal firearm than a country dweller? This variation in your opinion based on the urban-ness of a population seems to be based on the need for police omnipresence and the notion that a lack of police omnipresence is a police failure.
you COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police wont just stop when they get all the legal registered guns, they'll go after the illegal guns and gun rings more than anything else
You COMPLETELY FORGET the fact that the police CURRENTLY go after illegal guns and gun rings. As if this task was a complete success, you want to add to the task by requiring cops to take guns from people who otherwise did nothing wrong. If those law abiding citizens remain compliant, then they won’t have guns when the burglar does.
You say most shootings don't happen in the hands of legal gun owners, it doesn't matter if they are legal or not the murder is still being carried out via guns therefore they should be prohibited accordingly
Apply this line of thinking to knives. Most legal knife owners don’t murder people, but knife murders do still happen. Most licensed drivers do not go nuts and start driving over people, but it does still happen. Most billiards balls and pool sticks are properly used to play a fun bar game, but occasionally they are used to kill people in drunken brawls.
The trampoline analogy is a bit stupid as they are toys which have had their health and safety elements removed (side netting) and aren't actual weapons designed originally as a means of waging war.
Your inability to grasp the validity of this analogy is a bit stupid. Trampolines are dangerous even with their health and safety elements. Guns also have health and safety elements. As do cars. Responsible use of any of the above results in reduced negative outcomes, though never a reduction to 0 in any case.
Original use is irrelevant. Martial arts were originally developed to wage war. A proficient martial artist is quite lethal. Responsible people across the nation use martial as for recreation among other things. Some people use martial arts for crime, sometimes murder (MMA is popular with felons in prison). Should we ban the practice of martial arts? If we did, would we get rid of martial artists? Is it reasonable to say you don’t need martial arts because the cops will protect you?
My morality is not off for wanting to take away guns from a relatively stupid modernized population
Yours is a fatal conceit. Fortunately we have a system that protects us from your level of stupid within government. Do you think that my presumption of your stupidity is unfounded? Or is it your presumption that is unfounded?
The institution of the police is heavily based upon the concept of a panopticon in which all areas of society can be monitored, a state of complete surveillance and therefore response would provide coverage for all area's of crime. On the subject of domestic violence preventative techniques such as psychological screening and an overt increase in rate and severity of punishment would drastically decrease DV, obviously you may want to couple this with education on the matter if needed. We are dealing with hypothetical arguments on a hypothetical matter, or are you so atheistic in your thought that your are a nihilist and will not accept hypotheticals? (serious question)
I get your point, I was under the impression that the motto had been internalized by the institution regardless of states and their own judicial system. As we live in a state of governance and not nature (regardless of whether you support Hobbes or Locke) do you not think that an institution which the public pays for, via tax, has the purpose/obligation then of protecting the public from and preventing crime? And if the protection of your life in your sole responsibility then social cohesion itself starts to break down (as you feel then no obligation to protect others thus bringing a Darwinian aspect back into society) and participation within society reduces, Anomie rises as a result and so does crime.
Why would you even bring up omnipresence (albeit sarcastically), is the answer so hidden. You start a recruitment campaign, you attempt to remove the anti-police perspective introduced by BLM, then you redistribute police assets according to their correct areas based on crime rates and on public perception whilst developing effective ways of reporting potential criminal activity.
Obviously you could say my argument is flawed, if the police were doing their jobs correctly surely then there would be no crime regardless the presence of guns. Again we are using hypotheticals (i'm not saying that the police will ever to their jobs perfectly but theoretically all crime would be stopped if the police "did their jobs completely and perfectly") however what is more likely in reality, the Police being able to do their job perfectly or the removal of guns from a percentage of the American population, I say the latter. If the potential for crime was brought down to a threshold that the police could deal with and plan for effectively then crime then crime would be significantly reduced. The prohibition of the use of guns in specific areas would help achieve this.
The city dweller may be even more trustworthy however what are the reasons for a city dweller to use a gun? There are no natural predators that need to be killed or warned off, there is a higher density of officers per square km in urban areas so (assuming they do their jobs and the SCP works) you would be safe from public crime, so for what reason then would you need a hand gun or sniper rifle, recreation? If so then surely designated ranges would be the right way to go rather than owning a firearm.
When you say that if the law abiding citizens wont have guns to defend themselves against the burglar that does then that disregards the fact that by proxy the burglar with also have their gun confiscated. The main constitutional reason (that I'm aware of) to own a gun is due to the second amendment "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms", the right to own a firearm is so that you can fight an oppressive state, however seeing as the American government is now (Supposedly) geared towards eradicating any form of oligarchy, so why is there a need for an armed militia which in the digital age couldn't do a thing to prevent modern tyranny.
If you had used the analogy of Martial Arts originally then I wouldn't have called it stupid, however the analogy is still flawed as you attempt to compare an item originally created to kill with a series of limb movement originally created to kill. Martial arts have since developed into more behavioral practices, while since their creation guns have been developed to fulfill their purpose to an even greater extent, they have not developed into a relatively safe form of spiritual behaviorism. Original use is far from irrelevant, especially when the item or behavior has not developed away from it.
To say that the American political system protects you from my "Level of stupid" (without knowing a single thing about my intelligence, if I have any, morality) is then an unfounded presumption as the two final presidential candidates were Trump and Hilary, quite clearly a testament to the stupidity of the American system. Please don't be so controlled by ego (Freudian meaning not the common place) as to assume that I am stupid as I don't agree with you, or do you believe you are a paragon of intelligence because you've watched a load of Ben Shapiro videos? (P.s before you go down that rout I called your trampoline analogy stupid not you).
The institution of the police is heavily based upon the concept of a panopticon in which all areas of society can be monitored, a state of complete surveillance and therefore response would provide coverage for all area's of crime.
Since this isn’t at all true, I can only assume that this is how you think it could or should be. Again, this is not how policing works. The closest thing to what you’re describing is N Korea. It’s not a good idea.
On the subject of domestic violence preventative techniques such as psychological screening and an overt increase in rate and severity of punishment would drastically decrease DV, obviously you may want to couple this with education on the matter if needed
If you really think this will effectively eliminate domestic violence, why wouldn’t you apply this concept to gun crimes as well?
do you not think that an institution which the public pays for, via tax, has the purpose/obligation then of protecting the public from and preventing crime?
Police protect members of the public within their sphere of influence. Police prevent crime to the extent that crime prevention is possible. Police are human beings, and their sphere of influence is limited. As such, they cannot be everywhere at once. They can’t even be most places at any given time. This is not because they are not doing their job properly, it’s because they are human and they are few. For this reason, you must take care of yourself. Does your computer have a firewall? Do your doors have locks? Our roads are not safe because cops run traffic enforcement, roads are safe because people obey the laws, though not always. And when people do something wrong on the road, you have a seatbelt to protect yourself. When someone does something wrong to you physically, you have the legal right to physically protect yourself. When someone threatens your life, you have the legal right to stop that threat by any means. A gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is a seatbelt against the hazard of a lethal criminal. Cops are just people and they usually aren’t right next to you.
And if the protection of your life in your sole responsibility…
This is a cheap and shallow debate tactic. It is your responsibility to protect yourself. This is not to say that you cannot care about others. It is your responsibility to feed yourself, this doesn’t mean the world will starve.
Why would you even bring up omnipresence
The Panopticon is the illusion of omnipresence. I wasn’t being sarcastic. What you demand of law enforcement necessitates omnipresence at most or the illusion of omnipresence at least.
You start a recruitment campaign, you attempt to remove the anti-police perspective introduced by BLM, then you redistribute police assets according to their correct areas based on crime rates and on public perception whilst developing effective ways of reporting potential criminal activity
Police are distributed according to crime rates. There is a concerted effort to remove the anti-police perspective. None of this creates circumstances wherein police can literally protect any given person from crime for a majority, or even minority of the time. Even if there were a cop on every block, most people on that block would not be in the cops sphere of influence without a substantial time lag. During that lag, you must protect yourself.
Obviously you could say my argument is flawed, if the police were doing their jobs correctly surely then there would be no crime regardless the presence of guns. Again we are using hypotheticals (i'm not saying that the police will ever to their jobs perfectly but theoretically all crime would be stopped if the police "did their jobs completely and perfectly") however what is more likely in reality, the Police being able to do their job perfectly or the removal of guns from a percentage of the American population, I say the latter
This is an absolute flaw in your so-called logic. If police can prevent all crime, then people can have their guns. Since police cannot prevent all crime, people need to be able to have their guns.
There is already an effort to remove guns from a percentage of the population. Felons, among others, are banned from gun ownership. This does not stop them. Laws are merely statements of consequences, not absolute shapers of reality. Thus, banning guns does not eliminate guns, it only creates a set of consequences. If normal responsible people avoid those consequences by obeying the law, abnormal irresponsible people will continue to risk the consequences of breaking the law. As they already do.
If the potential for crime was brought down to a threshold that the police could deal with and plan for effectively then crime then crime would be significantly reduced. The prohibition of the use of guns in specific areas would help achieve this.
The use of firearms is already 100% prohibited in cities. You can see how that has worked.
The city dweller may be even more trustworthy however what are the reasons for a city dweller to use a gun? There are no natural predators that need to be killed or warned off
Other people have always been the primary natural predator for people. That’s why violent crime is worse in the city. Reality is the reason cops can’t protect everyone, not poor job performance.
When you say that if the law abiding citizens wont have guns to defend themselves against the burglar that does then that disregards the fact that by proxy the burglar with also have their gun confiscated
Burglary has actually been banned. Yet there he is, burglaring.
Martial arts have since developed into more behavioral practices, while since their creation guns have been developed to fulfill their purpose to an even greater extent, they have not developed into a relatively safe form of spiritual behaviorism
The avid shooter may disagree with you. Shooting well requires a zen like self-awareness. Shooting on a range is relaxing and works as a form of meditation. Even so, MMA is an effective method for causing severe harm and death. Criminals utilize it. Physical assault is far far more common than gun crime. I am not advocating the banning of MMA, I am pointing out your inconsistency.
Please don't be so controlled by ego (Freudian meaning not the common place) as to assume that I am stupid as I don't agree with you
Please refrain from making arrogant requests. I called you stupid because you referred to the population in general as stupid to justify your position of wanting to ban their guns. It is appropriate to meet this kind of conceit in kind. You are part of the “relatively stupid modernized population” who apparently lack the intelligence to legally own a lethal weapon. Your membership within this population means you are too stupid to make that kind of determination for other people. Your flawed logic demonstrates this perfectly. If police can protect you, then you can safely own a gun; if police cannot protect you, then for safety, you should own a gun.
I have to wrap this up. I’m going to conceal a pistol on my person and go shopping. Not because I expect trouble, but because my safety and well-being is my responsibility. Also, because I understand the positive externality of my behavior; that everyone around me is safer as a result of my responsible ownership of a firearm.
No, we can blame the guns as the guns are used in killing people. Without guns in america, there would be a lot less deaths. You cant blame the knife and fork because even if you ban the knife and fork, people who are obese will use spoons/hands to eat. What a joke foratag
It looks to me that you don't really care about people killing people. Maybe one day someone that you love or cherish will pass on early due to unfortunate reasons then we will see whether it is just people killing people.
But you do realise that the gun is the object causing many deaths..... especially in the wrong hands. If guns were banned, what would gangsters/ mobsters use? Knives? Wrench? Crowbar? All these items do damage but not so efficiently as a gun. by banning guns, there would be a significant drop of deaths in america
Provided a ban works, allowing both is "175 child deaths per year" more dangerous than just allowing swimming pools. On the other hand, allowing both is "550 child deaths per year" more dangerous than just allowing guns. The contrast is more stark if you consider the ease with which we could effectively eliminate swimming pools compared to the difficulties with eliminating firearms.
Source:
“Drowning vs Gun Death” in the book titled FREAKONOMICS by Levitt & Dubner in the chapter: “What makes a perfect parent?” To summarize the data from around the year 2000 (for ONLY the United States) 550 children under the age of 10 drown each year in the approx. 11,000 privately-owned backyard swimming pools. This does not include bathtubs, public swimming pools, hot tubs, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc. Compare that to 175 children under the age of 10 are killed each year by the approx. 200 million privately-owned guns (probably finding Mommy or Daddy’s gun and playing with it). Therefor, likelihood of death by private pool is 1 in 11,000 vs. 1 in 1million-plus by death by private gun.
Criminals could use guns illegally even if they were banned, because criminals break rules. Banning guns would only reduce crimes slightly, but would increase the death of victims because they have no gun to protect theirselves with.
I should have said more dangerous to young children.
It was a question posed in Freakonomics; "what's more dangerous?" After reviewing the data, economist Steven Levitt stated "Yeah, the answer to that question is incredibly easy. And the swimming pool is far, far more dangerous than the gun when it comes to young children."
This is not a very incredible statement. Consider the huge huge quantity of guns compared to the relative scarcity of personal swimming pools. Given this disparity, every death by swimming pool is going to have a larger statistical impact on the level of danger as a measure of deaths per unit than deaths by gun.
The U.S. became the most powerful nation in the world because of our drive to fight, we create weapons that are better than others, train harder and it all came from the American people. yes this was stolen and atrocities occurred; however, as time moved on, we know stand shoulder to shoulder with whites, native Americans, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc and fight together. And because our government has such impressive weaponry. It is necessary that the mass responsible gun owners keep their arms incase we need to fight our government. They may have better weapons and bombs but when things go horrible, the people stand up for each other no matter race and creed. We need our guns, and we must accept the bad that comes with this responsibility that we have as Americans
As a "liberal gun owner", (there are millions of us), I say NO! Should the use of guns by those with ignorant and hateful reasons for using (owning) them be restricted ,......YES!
Americans are more a risk from getting accidentally killed by one of their own guns in their own homes than by intruders or criminals ; is American society so fucked up that Americans are terrified in their own homes ?
Please do not trot out the usual mantra used by pro gun people as in ..... ' it's to protect ourselves from a future possibly tyrannical government ' ......
Victims have the right to receive justice. Proven rapists and murderers are people who through forensic, video, audio, or confession evidence have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime. Proven rapists and murderers are NOT innocent.
I will not change my mind Proven rapists or murderes have three rights: the right to see a clergyman, th right to due process, the right to not be tortured, and the right to die humanely. That's actually 4 reasons, but my point should be clear.
And the Fourteenth Amendment secures equality under the law, but you don't seem overly concerned with that...
People with diagnosed mental health conditions are not only less likely to be violent on average, but also more likely to be victims of violence. So on what grounds do you propose denying them the same rights you would extend to others? It certainly isn't constitutional grounds.
Evidently, people have a right to defend themselves so long as they've never had a mental illness which places them at greater risk of needing to defend themselves.
-Gun ownership and gun deaths negatively correlate over time. According to Dept of Justice statistics, from 1993 to 2011, gun homicide decreased 39% while nonfatal gun crimes decreased 69%. During the same time period, gun sales increased nationally. Guns aren’t the problem. On a larger scale, we live in the most peaceful time in human history with the most guns in human history.
-In 1976, Washington DC enacted strict gun control, prohibiting a citizen from using a gun even in self-defense. Following these measures, the cities homicide rate nearly doubled in just over a decade. A ban disarms the lawful.
-Worldwide, only 1/3 of gun owners comply with gun confiscation laws. In the US, that would mean 230 million guns flooding the black market. A ban is not enforceable.
No matter what system you make to close the loophole of people getting guns, there will always be some genius who can beat that system. Kill whatever genius and there will be another one and another one after that. It will go on forever. There's always someone out there smarter than the person who closes any loophole. And whoever that person is will be able to find ways to sell guns and spread the word in the criminal world.
I mentioned the following quote in another guns debate:
"The point of security is not to eliminate risk. That is impossible. The point of security is to bring risk down to an acceptable level."
Going by the very logic of prohibiting guns, giving everyone guns and defeating the point of going into a movie theater and trying to shoot a bunch of people in the first place is what will prevent these shootings.
And don't try to make the argument of cross fire because civilians have stopped shooters using guns:
Anyone saying it would cause more people to die in the cross fire is a moron, as I've read of other cases where the civilians does so little as aim their gun at the shooter from an angle where it would only take a split second to fire the gun but maybe one whole second to aim the gun at the civilian and the shooter just drops their gun and puts his/her hands up.
I love the liberals wanting to ban guns. So if we were to disarm you, and Trump became the violent dictator you all claim he will be, how do plan on opposing him again?
No, because you need guns to protect yourself. I know crimes happen, but if guns were banned, criminals could still use guns illegally. Why? Because they’re criminals.