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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
You're comparing a completely different type of law. And even if you weren't, it doesn't hold any water--a "criminal" in the sense of a speed limit wouldn't care for either of those reasons. They would drive as fast as would benefit them--much as a gang member would obtain a gun however he sees fit, because it would benefit his goals of violence and intimidation. The only person punished by gun control, then, is the person he seeks to intimidate who now CAN'T protect themselves.
So you're outright putting your selfish desires above the lives of the people in your country?
I should have said that "a 0.000006875% chance of anyone getting shot is a small price to pay for their freedoms." It's also ridiculous to think that gun control could ever eliminate this chance. Harm to innocents is a fact of life, I simply don't think that gun control is practically or morally the best way to reduce this chance.
So you're implying it's a disadvantage?
No, I meant that I don't believe gun control is the primary reason they experience such a low level of gun crime. As to the reason I don't think that criminals all over the place there [are] taking over the entire country because nobody owns guns is primarily due to cultural factors. They have a history of much lower crime and a lot less guns. This is further proven by the fact that gun control didn't decrease their suicide rate (as proponents of gun control argue that it would here). Not to mention which they don't enjoy nearly the same level of political freedom from a lack of a 2nd amendment.
does it not make sense to look at the way they handle certain aspects of crime and follow their steps?
Correct, it does not make sense to do so. Chicago has taken the same approach as Japan towards gun violence and only made their problem worse. It is incredibly reductionist to say that "because another country has vaguely the same philosophy, we should also adopt it", and ignores the obvious influence of a number of other cultural and socioeconomic factors at play.
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."
The rate is only about 10 times more, which is still inflated due to Japan being such an outlier (with typically only 1-2 gun deaths per capita). It is further inflated by the ~66% makeup of American gun deaths by suicide. So with a correct statistic, yes, I am making that argument.
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?
Why, then, did gun control in Japan do nothing for their astronomical suicide problem?
You enjoy that we have a gang problem that's completely out of control thanks to the enormous circulation of firearms in America?
How would gun control laws prevent existing criminals from having guns? 80% of offenders obtain their weapons illegally. All that laws would do is increase that percentage.
You enjoy reading stories of children accidentally shooting themselves, siblings or friends when playing with firearms?
Of course not. Nobody sane does. I do, however, blame the parents of those children--not the gun. I grew up with 15 or more guns in my house, and was taught from a young age how to treat them with safety and respect. Before that age, my parents responsibly stored them (and the ammunition) so that would never occur.
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?
This is laughably false when suicides are excluded, and only about 9% more when they aren't.
You enjoy the fact that the US has a murder rate 10s of times higher than that of most other developed nations on Earth?
It's only 10 times higher at best (US is about 4 per capita, "most other developed countries" fall in the ~.7ish range). Our homicide rate is also massively inflated by our urban areas, whereas most of our guns actually exist in rural areas (Illinois is about 5% and Wyoming is around 60% ownership rate across the population.) Guns don't even have a correlation (much less a causation) to higher homicide rates.
Pretty sick things to enjoy. But hey; "a small price to pay", right?
As has been proven above, I either don't "enjoy" any of those things or they simply don't exist. A small chance of getting shot IS, however, a small price to pay for the incredible freedoms that every American enjoys and the right included therein to defend myself should the day come I do get shot at.
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. :-)
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.
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.
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.
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??
"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?
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.
People use guns on themselves much more frequently than gang members do on each other.
That's correct.
The suicide rate by firearms is well over double the number of gang related murders annually.
Do you think that the suicide rate will go down if we just ban guns? Suicide is a physical solution to a mental problem, mind you.
raises the likelihood of someone in that household committing suicide significantly.
Ropes, cars, planes, belts, razor blades, and knives. All of these things can be used to commit suicide. Maybe not at the same rate, of course. Should we ban these as well?
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.
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.
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.
I feel it's wrong to glibly dismiss the life saving advantages of tighter gun controls by exclusively attributing the avoidable carnage to a culture of violence.
Any measure which will reduce the slaughter of American citizens is well worth implementing.
The journey of lowering the level of cultural violence needs to be embarked upon with single minded determination and vigour.
I feel it's wrong to glibly dismiss the life saving advantages of tighter gun controls by exclusively attributing the avoidable carnage to a culture of violence.
How you feel is irrelevant. There is a greater culture of violence in city slums, where gun control is tighter and illegal guns are prevalent. If you could effectively remove just the gang criminals from society, gun control would seem like a non-issue. Furthermore, gang violence, which accounts for the overwhelming amount of gun crime, has nothing to do with me and my gun nor does it apply to the vast majority of legal gun owners. Do you also feel it’s wrong to loose some of your own property because of something I did?
Any measure which will reduce the slaughter of American citizens is well worth implementing.
No lover of Liberty are you...Ever see iRobot?
The journey of lowering the level of cultural violence needs to be embarked upon with single minded determination and vigour.
Gosh. It sounds like resistance is futile eh comrade?
The journey to lower cultural violence starts with an overhaul of Judicial standards and means. It continues with a reintroduction of a mental health infrastructure. Flowery words are for demagogues and their sycophants.
Not all gun control measures are created equal. Try setting aside the emotionalism and you may find some common ground with your supposed enemy.
The journey to the reduction and eventual eradication of cultural violence, not to be confused with the eradication of all violence which is never going to happen, begins with education, both at home and in the classroom.
This process will be supplemented with rehabilitation centres and an increase in correctional detention facilities.
The depressing and negative narrative you're trying to shovel here is that America is forever doomed to an endless increase in levels of violence along with the limitless availability of lethal assault type weapons and there is absolutely nothing which can, or should be done to change things for the better.
If your attitude is representative of most Americans then I suggest that the words in the Anthem God Bless America be replaced with God Save America.
The depressing and negative narrative you're trying to shovel here is that America is forever doomed to an endless increase in levels of violence along with the limitless availability of lethal assault type weapons and there is absolutely nothing which can, or should be done to change things for the better.
You do love those straw men.. No, that’s not what I’m saying and I don’t think you really believe that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying your assault style weapons ban is worthless. It won’t actually help, and it’s not actually meant to. The US likely has the highest rate of responsible gun ownership in the world. People who legally own guns don’t tend to illegally use them. Yet you want to punish those people for the actions of people who never should have had guns. Your bullshit narrative is that people who want to keep their guns rights hate kids and love death. It’s cartoonish, but it works for the ill-informed. The best solutions available have nothing to do with a ban, least of all on marginal and statistically insignificant weapons such as the AR, and that’s my point.
It’s worth consideration when a tool for transport is responsible for more deaths than a tool of death.
Not really, considering the frequency in which people are exposed to this "tool for transport". A moving car going as little at 7mph can be lethal if hitting a person. Millions of people drive these things multitudes above that speed. This is the same argument as when the whole "Cows are deadlier than wolves because more people die from cows than wolves per year". You're failing to consider the amount of interaction between the two parties with the general public, and the potential dangers of each.
It should, since my individual car is more likely to harm someone than my individual gun. If you’re concerned about relative exposure, then you have to keep it in context. How many legally owned firearms are likely to kill compared to how many legally owned automobiles? Here’s a hint, most of your gun crimes are not committed with legally owned guns.
It should, since my individual car is more likely to harm someone than my individual gun.
If you're saying we should start pushing to ban automobiles, please be the first to put together an argument against them.
Here’s a hint, most of your gun crimes are not committed with legally owned guns.
It's not just about gun crimes; it's about gun-related deaths period. There are roughly twice as many suicides by firearm annually than gang related murders. Studies shown in households where firearms are present and acknowledged, the likeliness of everyone in that household committing suicide is much higher.
I’m not making an argument for you taking my car, I’m making an argument against you taking my gun. Or my more dangerous pool.
Statistics cannot tell you anything about an individual. Just as crime rates among blacks cannot tell you anything about the next black person you meet, rates of gun deaths cannot tell you anything about my guns. And if you believe that a gun in the home causes people to become suicidal, then you don’t understand the numbers you’re presenting. My gun does not increase the risk of me committing suicide just as it doesn’t increase the risk of me murdering someone. Roughly half the gun deaths are suicides, that still means that most gun owners do not own guns that will harm anyone. Do you know why? Because it’s a human problem, not a gun problem, as my other posts have illustrated.
Because we aren't exposed to wolves as often. Do you think if farmers tried making a living off of herding and raising hundreds of wolves(while also collecting the same amount of products from wolves) at the same rate as cows, the numbers would stay the same with more cow-related deaths?
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.
Well, try not let the overuse of the axiom;- ''they who live by the sword shall die by the sword detract from its enduring truth.
No one, particularly not me is advocating a total ban on guns.
Having had a death threat, indeed a number of, death threats made against me by one of the more savage terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland and verified by the authorities as being 'REAL' I was advised by the police to carry a personal protection weapon with me at all times, which I did, a legally issued six shot Smith & Wesson revolver
I am not advocating that, after psychological profiling, such firearms should not be issued to those whose lives are, for whatever reason under threat, a weapon of the type described above.
Had the assassin at Parkland Florida been armed with such a weapon he almost certainly would have been killed or disabled by the security personnel with significantly less loss of life.
My proposal is, PPWs to be of a maximum calbre of .38 and of a six shooter revolver type.
Rifles used for hunting and sports purposes should be of a single shot type before reloading.
The psychological profiling and background checks of all existing weapon owners and new licence applicants should be greatly enhanced.
The government should forget about foreign military intervention and concentrate tacking the estimated 33000 armed gangs causing death and mayhem on AMERICAN SOIL.
"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).
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.
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 !
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.
I agree. Unfortunately, however, the American people are too busy attacking each other's viewpoints to come up with a logical, realistic solution to these homicide problems.
Even if there is no statistical chance that you'll get shot, people are STILL getting shot. By MILITARY WEAPONS.
If this is not a cause of worry for them, I'm not sure what would be.
People aren’t getting shot by military weapons, so no worries there. People are mostly getting shot by handguns.
I think there are gun laws that both sides could get on board with. It’s not a ban. We could crack down hard on straw purchases (legal purchases intended for illegal transfer). We could crack down on the illegal transfer itself. We could also create a law punishing the legal owners of stolen weapons when they are used in a crime but never reported stolen (usually the result of a straw purchase). There are a number of ways to crack down on illegal firearms activity without ever threatening the rights of the lawful.
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?
The AR-15 has many features indistinguishable from military assault rifles and with a similar kill rate.
The AR-15 has as many features similar to an SR-22 rifle as to an M-16. The SR-22 is functionally the same as any other common hunting rifle. Even for youths. And the AR is a hunting rifle depending on the game.
“Kill rates” aren’t a function of guns, they are a function of shooter effectiveness. Before you talk about naivety, you might consider educating yourself on a matter. That you you can avoid relying on emotional appeals, denouncing the facts of statistics, and calling for the ban of things that are banned.
Your pivot from “assault weapons” to “assault style” weapons is a good start, but it still fails to hold any meaning considering the SR-22 could be considered an “assault style weapon” for its scary looking pistol grip and carrying handle, while an SKS may not be assault style as it lacks these innocuous features.
Oh, and nevermind that rifles account for a relatively small amount of death compared to the handgun. Handguns are more common and less scary looking. They are more likely to be legally owned. But hey, they aren’t assault style so...
The only important fact in this argument is that assault type rifles such as the AR-15 have killed 100s of people.
There is absolutely no necessity to have such firearms in general circulation.
For you to try to defend the indefensible is ridiculous and for me to attempt to point out the stupidity of someone as stubbornly intransigent as you is even more ridiculous.
Hopefully not, but maybe some day a deranged moron will kill members of your family with an assault type rifle.
If you wish to point out fallacies, it would help to know what they mean. The SR-22 is modeled after the AR. If the AR should be banned for its design, so should the SR-22. But if you think the SR-22 should be banned, then you’re ignorant on the matter and your opinion merits no consideration.
There is a straw man fallacy in this debate, but it’s on your end. In a debate about the statistics of gun violence, you point to one of the most marginal, statistically insignificant weapons because it looks scary, while denigrating the use of statistics in favor of, yet another fallacy, appeals to emotion. People on your side of the debate have to point to AR’s specifically because they are marginal. The worst actual shooting in the US was Virginia Tech. It didn’t get the same level of media heat because the shooter used handguns, which are more popular. But if you target a more marginal weapon such as the AR, you create a precedent to ban other weapons down the road. Nevermind that handguns cause way more death. Nevermind that ARs account for almost none of the overall gun violence. It’s your foot in the door. Your unqualified, ignorant foot in my door. No thanks.
Hopefully not, but maybe some day a deranged moron will kill members of your family with an assault type rifle.
You’ve got an all around sense of real justice don’t you...It’s not likely to happen, we carry.
"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.
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.
Progress can't be achieved when you can't come together and cooperate
No one disagrees with this. Obviously the first response to any conflict with the government is political action and voting, expression, etc. Hence why the Bill of Rights includes the rights to speech and assembly in ADDITION to that of bearing arms.
But what if that fails? If the government insists on transgressing over fundamental liberties? How would we resist without the 2nd amendment?
The "us against them" mentality, by the way, is the checks and balance system that the entire American government is based on. It is necessary for the operation of a free republic of any real scale.
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.
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.