CreateDebate


Debate Info

30
23
Agree Utopian fairytales
Debate Score:53
Arguments:55
Total Votes:54
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (27)
 
 Utopian fairytales (20)

Debate Creator

Mingodalia(231) pic



There's almost no statistical chance that you ever get shot



There is little chance of being killed by a gun statistically, so the "gun homicides are out of control" narrative is a flat out lie.

There were 11,208 gun homicides in 2013. There are about 320,000,000 people in the United States. Let's do the math.

11,208÷320,000,000
=0.000035025

There is a 0.000035025% chance of getting killed by a gun in a homicide. 

Gangs will not disarm no matter what the law says, and if you take away gang violence, almost no one gets killed by a gun in a homicide.

1,358 people were killed in what is defined as a "mass shooting" in 2015.

1,358÷320,000,000
=0.0000042438

This means there is a 0.0000042438% chance of being killed in a mass shooting.

This is literally comparable to the odds of being struck by lightning.

1÷700,000
=0.0000014285

According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders on average in 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 320,000,000 legal citizens.

2,200÷320,000,000
=0.000006875

This means there is a 0.000006875% chance that I am killed by a gun in a non gang related homicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623_040623_lightningfacts.html

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/176690986


Agree

Side Score: 30
VS.

Utopian fairytales

Side Score: 23
2 points

For the sake of me being too lazy to research and the fact that it doesn't waver my point, I'm going to assume these statistics are at least partially true.

What basis do you have to assume that stricter gun control won't further reduce these numbers?

Japan's population exceeds 127 million. They have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, yet rarely see more than 10 gun-related deaths per year. Your thoughts?

Side: Agree
JimboShrimp(25) Disputed
1 point

What basis do you have to assume that stricter gun control won't further reduce these numbers?

Because a huge majority of them are gang-related, and criminals frankly don't care whether you ban their guns or not. Gun control just won't affect those numbers. I can't account for the remaining 2,200 without looking at the stats myself, but a 0.000006875% chance of getting shot is a small price to pay for the freedoms I enjoy.

They have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, yet rarely see more than 10 gun-related deaths per year.

Japan has had a radically different culture of violence since WW2 and have always had lower crime rates than many other developed countries. Gun control doesn't seem to be their advantage. Not to mention which, more importantly, they don't have anywhere near the same guarantee of freedoms that the US enjoys thanks to the 2nd Amendment.

Side: Agree
Logically(192) Disputed
1 point

Because a huge majority of them are gang-related, and criminals frankly don't care whether you ban their guns or not.

This is proven false numerous times. There are many studies that show laws, when enforced, reduce crimes those laws were based upon. Do you really follow the speed limits only because your instincts just tell you that's the safe speed to drive, or because you don't want to be punished for going too far above those limits?

a small price to pay for the freedoms I enjoy.

So you're outright putting your selfish desires above the lives of the people in your country? Good to know. Only when everyone will do anything that does them no harm to spare harm for others will the world see peace. Abandoning selfish materialism and using outdated law to justify death inspired by that same materialism is sickening. Do you have a certain percentage you keep in your head and say "If the chance of innocents getting shot goes above this amount, then I'll start looking at abandoning my ideas"? If so, what is that percent?

Gun control doesn't seem to be their advantage.

So you're implying it's a disadvantage? Holding a gun in Japan is illegal; why don't you see criminals all over the place there taking over the entire country because nobody owns guns?

Japan has had a radically different culture of violence since WW2 and have always had lower crime rates than many other developed countries

If lower crime rates are what we strive for, does it not make sense to look at the way they handle certain aspects of crime and follow their steps?

Not to mention which, more importantly, they don't have anywhere near the same guarantee of freedoms that the US enjoys thanks to the 2nd Amendment.

This argument is pretty much "America is better because America allows guns, even with a gun-related death rate 100s of times higher than Japan."

You keep using the phrase "enjoys" when talking about the 2nd amendment. You enjoy what guns do to people? You enjoy that it's been shown in studies that the presence of a gun in a household makes those in that household likelier to commit suicide? You enjoy that we have a gang problem that's completely out of control thanks to the enormous circulation of firearms in America? You enjoy reading stories of children accidentally shooting themselves, siblings or friends when playing with firearms? You enjoy the fact that more Americans have died by guns on American soil than Americans lost cumulatively in every war we've ever participated? You enjoy the fact that the US has a murder rate 10s of times higher than that of most other developed nations on Earth?

Pretty sick things to enjoy. But hey; "a small price to pay", right?

Side: Utopian fairytales
1 point

Exactly why I haven't carried a gun, though I've been in many of the most dangerous places in America and around the world. "There's almost no statistical chance that" ... you'll need one for protection. :-)

Side: Agree
kathryn_m001(5) Disputed
2 points

After a mass shooting where over 30 people were murdered by a lone gunman gun laws tightened in Australia. part of our constitution does not include the right to bear arms. some of the gun lobbyists portrayed in the media seem to have no regard for human life. everyday in your news there are shootings. if you got a gun and he got a gun and she got a gun and everyone has a gun there is going to be a lot of blood shed. and at the very least your gun laws should be tightened where all those who purchase guns the name of the purchaser and the type of gun are registered.

Side: Utopian fairytales
1 point

1)They regard individual liberty. By leftist thinking, lightning must be outlawed, seeing more people are struck by lightning every year in America than shot, as is pointed out in one of the above points. It also shows there's almost no chance of getting shot

If you want good odds of being shot, fight in a war.

2)The pro gun person doesn't willingly give up their guns to people who refuse to put illegal immigrant gun using criminals in prison to "keep families together" and to "be tolerant of other cultures". They don't give up their guns because liberals shoot people or import foreigners who shoot people.

3)Australia is about the population of an American state. The population isn't crammed into one spot like the U.S. It's far more spread out. California alone has 48 million. All of Australia only has 26 million.

4)Third, fourth, fifth generation Americans aren't going to happily give up their guns when their demographic isn't doing most of the shooting. They also will not happily give up their guns because liberal controlled, lawless regions are more violent. They won't happily give up their guns each time a liberal or foreigner decides to start killing people.

5)They won't give up guns when a far right nut job kills some people either. This is an individual liberty regardless of what a few maniacs do, and for all I know, if you could somehow magically close every avenue for them to legally get a gun, they could easily get an illegal gun, and in the case of the Vegas shooter, if he'd had no firearm, it looks like the weapons grade bomb material in his car could have taken down the entire building. Tempting lunatics to get creative is a real shitty idea.

Side: Agree
Amarel(4059) Disputed
1 point

Your law didn’t work.

Gun violence was already low in Australia and was on the decline. Following your massive gun buy back, your gun violence continued to drop, but not as fast as American gun crime dropped in the same time period. The only statistically significant change brought by your gun laws was a reduction in accidental shootings, which are already very rare.

We don’t have mass shootings in our news everyday, we have one shooting in our news 24/7 for months. Some places are more violent than others. Places like major cities where illegal gun ownership is high, legal gun ownership is low, and gun laws are generally more strict.

While guns in general are dangerous, the odds that my gun will be used in a murder are subatomic, so I’ll keep it thanks.

Side: Agree
outlaw60(13141) Disputed
1 point

Really Crazy Al and you said this !!!!

There's almost no statistical chance that" ... you'll need one for protection. :-)

But Dummy how would a Nut Job Progressive like you are know any real statistics ?

Tell me Crazy AL you would take a nice stroll on the South Side of Chicago LMMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That should be a Safe Place being Obama claims that as home right AL !!!!!!!!!

Side: Utopian fairytales
AlofRI(2078) Clarified
1 point

I lived in Chicago for 2 years. I was married in Chicago. I took the EL down to the south side at least once a month ... deep into the south side. I walked four blocks BACK to the nearly abandoned El Station around midnight, usually waited for the train for about half an hour. Never had a problem. I never laughed MMFAO when I did it. I also had a black friend that took me out to a couple of black bars. I was the only white face there! Again, no problem! Crazy Al strikes again! I doubt YOU could do that, the look in your eyes would end your MFA most likely ... try it! :-) Next MF challenge??

Side: Agree
1 point

"There's almost no statistical chance that" ... you'll need one for protection.

Yes, you may have been to some of the most dangerous places in America. Then again, your anecdotal holds no ground. And, if we don't need to carry guns, why do we need to ban them? If no one is going to use guns, why do we need to take them away in the first place?

Side: Agree
Logically(192) Disputed
1 point

If no one is going to use guns, why do we need to take them away in the first place?

What you mean by this is "If no one is going to use guns for murder. People use guns on themselves much more frequently than gang members do on each other. The suicide rate by firearms is well over double the number of gang related murders annually. Studies also show that the presence of a gun in a household raises the likelihood of someone in that household committing suicide significantly.

Side: Utopian fairytales
1 point

Cars kill 36k people per year, just like guns (Source 1)(note also that around half of the gun deaths are suicides). Wanting guns to be illegal, but not cars, is indicative of a belief that the right to self-defense and the defense of one's property is less important than the ability to travel quickly.

Sources:

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Side: Agree
Antrim(1306) Disputed
1 point

Using the deaths caused by motorized vehicles as a comparison with the deliberate slaughter of 1000s every year is embarrassingly pitiful.

Vehicular traffic is an essential part of everyday life throughout the world.

From the transport of goods to emergency vehicles and from social occasions such as picnics to formula one racing the automobile is an integral part of our lives.

Motor vehicles are manufactured and bought for the purpose of transport.

Yes, guns can be used for sport and personal protection but, the prime function of a gun is to kill.

Unrestricted firearm ownership is the custom and practice of a misguided nation whose firearm policy needs to be overhauled and brought into line with the rest of the civilised world.

There are two types of people in this world, those who feel confident and self assured in their ability of unarmed self defence and those snivelling little white-livered cowards who need to have their white knuckled hand clutched around a lethal weapon to give themselves Dutch courage.

Side: Utopian fairytales
2 points

Vehicular traffic is an essential part of everyday life throughout the world.

So is defending yourself and your property.

Side: Agree
Amarel(4059) Disputed
2 points

It’s worth consideration when a tool for transport is responsible for more deaths than a tool of death.

There’s no self defense scenario against an armed assailant. That’s a murder scenario.

Our crime in general is high. Our culture is violent. This is why peaceful cultures with fairly free gun laws, such as Switzerland, have low crime rates. America’s problem is cultural. This cultural problem is also why rural areas in the US, where legal gun ownership is high, have relatively low crime rates compared to urban areas where illegal gun ownership is high.

Side: Agree
1 point

There are two types of people in this world, those who feel confident and self assured in their ability of unarmed self defence and those snivelling little white-livered cowards who need to have their white knuckled hand clutched around a lethal weapon to give themselves Dutch courage.

1)There are far more than "2 types of people in the world".

2)If you showed your fists to an armed maniac, and he shot you, you wouldn't be brave. You'd be stupid.

3)If you had to live in Compton for a day, your instincts would quickly kick in and go get a firearm or you would be killed by one.

Side: Agree
WinstonC(1117) Disputed
1 point

"Vehicular traffic is an essential part of everyday life throughout the world."

So is the ability to defend oneself, one's liberty and one's property.

"the prime function of a gun is to kill."

Are there no situations that require killing?

"Unrestricted firearm ownership is the custom and practice of a misguided nation whose firearm policy needs to be overhauled and brought into line with the rest of the civilised world."

Firearm ownership is regulated in the U.S.; it isn't unrestricted.

"There are two types of people in this world, those who feel confident and self assured in their ability of unarmed self defence"

Good luck defending yourself unarmed against an armed opponent, a stronger opponent, or most futile of all, a government.

"those snivelling little white-livered cowards who need to have their white knuckled hand clutched around a lethal weapon to give themselves Dutch courage."

Tell that to the women that defended themselves from rape by use of a firearm; an estimated 200K rapes are prevented yearly by defensive gun use (Source 1).

Supporting Evidence: Source 1 (americangunfacts.com)
Side: Agree
1 point

When you get shot, it will be too late to ask for your gun rights...

Side: Utopian fairytales
outlaw60(13141) Disputed
1 point

Wait a minute there are Gun Rights when did the Brain Dead take notice ????????

Side: Agree
1 point

You are disputing while agreeing so I will support you to add to the other side to wind you up even more, you infantile troll.

Side: Agree
mrcatsam(517) Disputed
1 point

Exactly. And guess what, Mingo? You forgot that when you convert decimals to percents, you divide by 100.

Side: Agree
Amarel(4059) Disputed
1 point

.6875 per 100,000 is low. About 10 times lower than the non-firearm suicide rate of 6.21 per 100,000 in the same year.

Side: Utopian fairytales
Mingiwuwu(1215) Clarified
1 point

You are disputing me to agree with me?

Side: Agree
1 point

Well, there are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics.

This kindergarten attempt to reduce the shocking carnage of innocent lives to the ridiculous by quoting meaningless statistics is below contempt.

Why is America the only nation on earth which demands that certain sections of its population need war type weapons such as the deadly assault rifle AR-15 which alone has killed an estimated 200 people since 2007. Apparently no on knows the exact figure.

Trying to manipulate figures to demean the argument for tighter gun controls must appear to be very clever, providing one or more of your family and/or loved ones don't form part the statistics.

Side: Utopian fairytales
outlaw60(13141) Clarified
1 point

Not really sure what an assault weapon is ? If you can clarify that for me then do so.

Best i know a .22 caliber is as deadly as the Dreaded AR-15. So i don't get your point.

Law abiding citizens that are gun owners are not looking to kill anyone but they do have the right to protect themselves , their property and their family.

I disagree with your attack on the law abiding gun owners no matter the weapon they can legally own.

Criminals , Guns and Dope go hand in hand and is there any attack on them hell no but there must be an attack on the ability of the law abiding to own AR-15 Rifles ?

Don't get nor will i ever get it but i must tell you it is a disturbing mindset in my opinion !

Side: Agree
Antrim(1306) Clarified
1 point

I have no problem whatsoever with the issuing of personal protection weapons to those people who have genuine reasons to believe that their lives, or the lives of their families are in danger.

I am no weapons expert but an assault rifle can be depicted by the features displayed by the deadly AR-15, the weapon used to slaughter 17 teenagers at Parklands Florida.

Mass shooting should not be accepted as a price of freedom.

The government should stop involving itself and the American people in foreign military adventures and set about the more important and arduous task of confronting the 33000 armed gangs roaming through the towns and cities of America.

Tackle this gun crisis at its roots.

Side: Agree
Amarel(4059) Disputed
1 point

This kindergarten attempt to reduce the shocking carnage of innocent lives to the ridiculous by quoting meaningless statistics is below contempt.

What’s more kindergarten than denouncing statistics in favor of appeals to emotion?

Also, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon. The US banned assault weapons for general use.

Side: Agree
Antrim(1306) Disputed
2 points

The AR-15 has many features indistinguishable from military assault rifles and with a similar kill rate.

Once again you're naively trying to cloud the issue by throwing in a misinformation.

The N.R.A., have tried to derail the argument against assault type weapons by labeling them as hunting rifles, such a yarn, who do these dealers in death think they're kidding?

Side: Utopian fairytales
JimboShrimp(25) Disputed
1 point

"Why is America the only nation on earth which demands that certain sections of its population need war type weapons such as the deadly assault rifle AR-15"

Because America is the only nation on Earth entirely founded on the core principle that the people have a right and a RESPONSIBILITY to resist their own government should it become tyrannical.

And 200 people over 10 years is an incredibly small price to pay for that freedom.

Side: Agree
Logically(192) Disputed
1 point

Because America is the only nation on Earth entirely founded on the core principle that the people have a right and a RESPONSIBILITY to resist their own government should it become tyrannical.

This is also one of the most ignorant ideas the founding fathers held. This blatantly implies citizens should hold an "us against them" mentality with their government. Progress can't be achieved when you can't come together and cooperate. With your mentality, America is a doomed nation.

Side: Utopian fairytales
1 point

It does not matter. The Democrats don't need stats, facts, common sense, logic, or rational thinking to make a point. All they need is Jim Jones to tell them what to do. Don't drink the kool aid.

Side: Utopian fairytales

On the contrary, you did some calculations wrong. I think you forgot to multiply by 100 to get the percentage. But anyway...

There is some statistical chance, but it is low. However, it is comparable to the chance of getting killed by a shark, and is significantly higher than getting killed by a falling meteor.

Side: Utopian fairytales