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 were many different reasons and explanations for the revolution, but the general statement today is the whole "no representation" in government thing. Americans felt like they were being treating as second class citizens, and were entitled to more participation in their own governing.
At that time, England was dealing with the dept from the seven-years war, which was largely fought to keep their colonies. So the figured it would be justifiable to tax those colonies without involving them in the process.
I could go on into more detail, but i think it is better just to give you the general story so not to confuse you.
PS- I am American, so it might also benefit you to hear a English persons side of the story too. I tried to give an unbiased view of the history, but i might have missed something.
1. Yes we did use guns during The Revolutionary War, but so did The British
2. We did not win the war because we had guns. We won the war because we were on our land and, because of that used the knowledge of our land as part of our war efforts.
3. A lot of American military leaders knew how the English military thought, worked, and planned. Because of this, we outwitted them. The American Generals used the British's own tactics against them. Basically we were smarter.
4. Here is my synopsis: Guns did play a role, but on both sides equally. We won the war because we were fighting on our territory and used our strong logistical land knowledge and the British Army's lack of logistical land knowledge to our advantage. The military insight which men brought over from England and Europe gave The American soldiers an upper hand; they knew their tactics. This helped The American Army plan and execute preemptive military maneuvers against The British Army saving many American lives and towns.
In closing, I have noticed, sadly, that a lot of the credit of winning The Revolutionary War has gone to guns rather than the brave men who fought for all of our freedoms. We won The Revolutionary War simply because we were smarter, knew the terain and had better military preparation. We did not win The Revolutionary War simply because of the guns we were using (that was a draw).
The next time you see a soldier or a vet please thank them.
We did not win the war because we had guns. We won the war because we were on our land and, because of that used the knowledge of our land as part of our war efforts
Exactly! That's why we can't have an assault weapons ban because we need to have an even playing field with the government. The rebels during the revolution had the same exact weapons as the British; rifles, muskets, and cannons. Now I know we can't have jets, drones, and nuclear bombs, but assault weapons would do.
That is the craziest thing I have ever heard and I pray you do not own a gun. Tell me, how are gun owners going to use their guns to keep our government honest? Please give me a clear example and synopsis.
I think it causes more harm because many people get killed nowadays because of gun use. Whether the use of it is legal, it also corrupts the thinking of other people that it is right to kill others. Many people also use guns for self defense, but sometimes, defending yourself could result to so much anger, thus, hinders you from doing good judgment
Actually, 99.9% of guns in American are not used in a crime, only .1% are. Guns are used 4 times more in self defense and in those cases, 98% of the time it is not fired. Only 4% out of that .1% were guns that were obtained legally. Cars kill more people than guns annually. There were 33,883 car fatalities in 2009, versus 9,146 gun homicides in 2009. Out of those gun homicides, 366 were caused by a legally obtained firearm. The rest were illegally obtained. And I don't think it conditions people that killing is okay. Criminals do not have the same values as the general populace, so they view killing as okay, but not some average joe defending his home. Defending yourself can cause anger, but mostly fear. When your life is threatened, you become fearful and go into "fight or flight". A person owning a firearm must know that owning a firearm carries responsibility, and their judgement must always stay keen, no matter the situation. He doesn't become a monster that many people think he will become because of having a gun in his hand.
The statistics from above came from the FBI and the CATO Institute.
I don't think they are half-truths. They came from the FBI. And I actually wrote this whole thing out and I'm like, "It's a good argument, but I don't want to write it out again for another argument." So I just wrote it once and kept on using it. Haha!
So does CNN, or Fox. Anybody with the means and the power can constrew information. Look how Pierce Morgan, who was only supposed to interview, started slamming the Executive Director of the Gun Owners of America. He used his position inappropriately. If we can't start trusting government law enforcement, then why trust anyone in the government? They can screw information, but why would they? The natural tendency for the government is to ban weapons, so why would a government agency put this information out that can support the views of gun owners? I don't see a reason.
Weapons used to slaughter kids the most recent killing were legal property of the murder's mother. However they will be in your "statistic" accounted as illegal because of a legal glitch.
If he killed to obtain a weapon not owned by him, then that is illegal. It didn't stop it though. I don't know why that would be BS. It was illegal. Illegal is illegal. There isn't much gray area here.
I'm sorry, but your argument is a little confusing in the wording. What I think you mean is since these guns came from a gun store, they were legally obtained, which is the same case for all of the other firearms. That may be true, but when a person buys a gun from a store, then sells it to someone else who intends to do harm with it, it was sold by the buyer illegally. It doesn't matter whether the gun came from a gun store, Santa, or someone's ass, if it was bought, then sold again or stolen with intent to do harm, it is illegal. Same example with a car. If a car dealership sells a car to someone, who in turn sells it to someone else in order to run someone over, then it was sold illegally. Or if it was stolen and used to kill someone, it was illegally obtained.
How does the possession of a gun "corrupt" someone's thinking? Like does it whisper into their ear, "yo dawg, tis cool, shoot that nigga" constantly, or is it more like "The FLESH OF FALLEN ANGLES!, SHOOT THEM DOWN, eat them! muahahah, the flesh...the flesh."?
Weapons were made to harm before they were made to defend.
If we all suddenly had a weapon, I can assure you that death and destruction would follow.
If we all suddenly had no weapons, and could never acquire weapons, I can assure you that the only violence that follows will be a few panicked fist fights that don't end in people getting killed, likely. At least, not as likely as people dying from everyone suddenly having a weapon.
"Weapons were made to harm before they were made to defend."
This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting. Assuming you are referring to guns, which is the purpose of this debate, this specific statement is true. However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good. Just as something made to be helpful can be used for harm (e.g. the discovery of nuclear fusion later being used to create the hydrogen bomb), something made to be harmful can be used moreso for good, as could be the case with guns.
"If we all suddenly had no weapons, and could never acquire weapons, I can assure you that the only violence that follows will be a few panicked fist fights that don't end in people getting killed, likely. At least, not as likely as people dying from everyone suddenly having a weapon."
You can assure this? First off, this is an impractical argument. Never will this be the case. People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).
Secondly, this is an absurd assurance. In other time periods when weapons were less readily available, people would be buried alive, brutally stoned to death, burned at the stake, thrown in pits/fed to animals, beaten to death by mobs, etc, none of which include the use of human-constructed weapons. Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.
"If we all suddenly had a weapon, I can assure you that death and destruction would follow"
Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not. Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world. Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.
This is not true of weapons in general, at least as it pertains to humans. Weapons were first invented for hunting.
You just contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hunting, by definition and as a prerequisite, harms other creatures.
However, this point does not lead to the conclusion that guns cause more harm than good.
They were invented to kill people, not point at people so they will leave you alone.
I am not attempting to measure the exact amount of harm and good done by weapons and guns because it's pretty self-evident. They kill people. Easily. They were invented to wage war.
If a weapon was originally created to do good, then it would not be a weapon.
Armor is what is meant to protect you, usually from weapons. Armor is inherently good, as it is created only to mitigate death by those who wear it.
Saying a weapon can do good because you use it protect people is a fairytale. If you want to protect someone, use yourself as armor for them or give them armor. Literally shield people. You don't need to be able to kill people to protect people.
People will always find a way to obtain weapons, and this being the case, people will need to defend themselves. This is the primary reason for guns today, as statistics show (see Scout's post).
Was it not apparent that I was speaking hypothetically?
Pulling the metaphor back into reality doesn't really dispute the meaning of it. If people could never have weapons again, violence would significantly decrease, perhaps onto oblivion. If everyone in the world had a weapon and couldn't get rid of it, violence would, at least, not decrease at all, and that's the best case. Moreover, people being able to easily kill each other would result in, duh, people killing each other more often, because it would be easier.
This is because the very nature of a weapon, any weapon, is to kill or hurt things. They are not meant to protect people. They can be used to protect people, but they were not made to protect. They cause violence, not mitigate it. Armor mitigates violence, because it's not designed to hurt people, even though armor can protect someone that hurts another.
Yet you are sure that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" if weapons didn't exist? History claims otherwise, as does the nature of humanity. Never underestimate humanity's depravity.
My point was that weapons make killing each other easier.
When you take away the ease, it the killing is reduced.
That's just logic.
Death and destruction will be present whether weapons exist or not.
Sure, but it would be lesser. And destruction would be limited to tools which are not weapons, and therefore it wouldn't be violent, making it stupid, but not violent (aside from non-human destruction, but that's beside the point).
Guns are used as a defense against the horrible nature of some people in our world.
And they are also used by people with horrible natures as an offense against others.
But you know what guns and weapons in generally are primarily meant to do?
Violently kill people.
If weapons did not primarily do harm, they wouldn't be weapons. If weapons were primarily used to prevent harm, then their primary function wouldn't be to kill and harm other living things.
Only a few use guns for terrible reasons, but many use guns for protection against those few.
Everyone uses guns to kill and harm other people. Other then that, 'protection' and 'terrible reasons' are subjective, and based upon your view of most guns being used to protect, I suspect you and I differ upon what we define as 'terrible' and 'protective'.
"You just contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Hunting, by definition and as a prerequisite, harms other creatures"
I guess my statement wasn't clear. What I meant is that weapons were not first invented to harm humans. They were first invented for hunting animals for food. I bring up this point because if one defines hunting as good (perhaps because it is an important source of food), then the initial intention of weapons was good for humans. Harmful to animals, yes, but good for humans. I pointed it out because if hunting is considered a good thing, your point, while literally correct, does not argue against the "more good" position.
"They were invented to kill people, not point at people so they will leave you alone.
I am not attempting to measure the exact amount of harm and good done by weapons and guns because it's pretty self-evident. They kill people. Easily. They were invented to wage war."
I have to reiterate the same point before. You're making a non sequitor fallacy here. You are arguing (I assume) that "Weapons were intended for harm, therefore they must be more harmful than good." This does not follow. It is certainly possible that they could be intended for harm yet end up being used more for good.
"If a weapon was originally created to do good, then it would not be a weapon."
This statement makes it easy to show the fallacy you keep making. I imagine there are loads of examples, here is a clear-cut one. Rockets were first invented in order to make it out of the earth's atmosphere and explore space. However, in both world wars, rockets were used extensively by the nazis as weapons. Yes, the same invention that allowed us to reach the moon was used as weapons in both world wars. By your statement, the rockets in both world wars were not weapons, which is clearly not the case. The reason that a rocket can be a weapon is that it can be USED as a weapon. Initially rockets were intended for good, but people USED them as a weapons. Anything can be a weapon if it is USED as one. If I took the "inherently good" armor off of my body and starting beating someone with it, it would be a weapon - an offensive tool, something used for harm. The point being, armor cannot be inherently good - I can use it for evil, harmful things if I choose.
Now you might think back and say "Yeah, but the initial purpose of rockets or body armor was not to harm, but the initial purpose of guns WAS to harm." Yes, this is true, but the same logic applies. When one takes a gun and USES it to defend innocent children, it becomes an agent for good because of its USE. This is not a fairytale. No thing/object, in and of itself, is inherently good or evil. The way that thing is used is what constitutes good or evil. Sure, some things like a gauntlet, poisonous gas, a flamethrower, etc, tend to be an agent of harm much more than good, but they are not harmful, in and of themselves. How are these things harmful until they are used for harm? Is a gun sitting on a rock for all of time harmful?
Therefore to address this argument, it becomes important to determine whether or not guns are USED more for harm or for good. This debate calls for us to look at the "exact amount of harm and good" guns are used for (statistics, reports, etc), even though you don't want to do this. It could also call for us to define exactly what acts are good and what acts are harmful.
"My point was that weapons make killing each other easier.
When you take away the ease, it the killing is reduced.
That's just logic."
Of course weapons make killing each other easier. They make defending each other easier as well. When you take away the ease, the ability to defend oneself is also reduced and we are more at the mercy of evil. My point was just concerned with dispelling the absurd assumption that the only violence would be a "few panicked fist fights" in your hypothetical. Skip the argument to absurdity and just make your point.
"Everyone uses guns to kill and harm other people"
This is far from true. This would be close to true if you had said "Everyone uses guns with the intention of killing and harming others." (Still not true - many would have no desire to kill, only injure if necessary, and a few would have guns merely as defensive show, so that they would be safe without having to actually harm someone back).
This statement is still slanted to make it sound like people do not use guns for good.
Certainly there would be many cases where harming someone, or even killing someone, would be good. (e.g. Someone breaking into your home to hurt you or your family, someone trying to rape you or anyone on the streets, a psychopath roaming around a school intending to harm, a suicide bomber walking around in a mall, etc.) These are clear cut cases where guns injure the attacker but they are used for good, some specific, some more general.
Moreso, in many instances harm is actually completely absent because of guns. Just as their power is capable of inflicting harm, their power is able to prevent great harm by their mere threat. Humans, just like other animals, have strong instincts to survive and avoid conflict. The threat of a gun is an extremely powerful message to these instincts, and the majority of people will back down to it. A ton of harm can be prevented in these instances, something people would consider good.
"Was it not apparent that I was speaking hypothetically?"
Yes it was. Let's clear things up a bit. Purely hypothetically, I can't imagine I'd
disagree with you. The complete and total absence of weapons versus the presence of weapons would, presumably, result in less violence and harm. And if that's the sole purpose of this argument, we agree. However, I assumed that is not the purpose of this argument, because this hypothetical realization is pointless. I compared the metaphor to reality because I am hoping this debate is about reality. I interpreted the debate as "In our world, do guns cause more good or more harm?" In our world weapons are a fact and the alternative never will be. But if you want your hypothetical about weapons to be the endgame of this argument, sure, I agree with you. However, in our world and in our societies, where weapons inevitably exist, I am arguing guns are used more for good. Certainly they are used for evil sometimes, but the data seem to show they are used more for defensive reasons, and that generally means they are used to protect oneself/others.
Show me a compelling set of data (or interpretation of data) that makes it clear that guns are USED for harm more than good and I might change stances. I am far from grounded in my stance for this debate - the purpose of my initial response was more to argue against your discarding of Scout's statistics. I imagine our views on gun control would be closer than you'd think, but this debate isn't specifically about that.
So what if it's unrealistic? It's just as ridiculous as everyone in the world having a weapon. The point is that weapons help cause violence. Less weapons existing equals less violence.
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 0 = 1
Logic.
If a weapon caused more good them harm, then it would not be a weapon, because a weapon, as a prerequisite, causes harm.
It's just as ridiculous as everyone in the world having a weapon. The point is that weapons help cause violence. Less weapons existing equals less violence
Not actually. The world was violent pre gun. The murders were just more physical and gruesome.
1)Personal guns are typically not used to kill people. people use them to go hunting, or just to shoot them at targets
2)mace is a good defense to an unarmed crook or maybe somebody with a knife, but what is they have a gun. Gun's have a longer range than mace, so the crook with the gun would have the upper hand.
3) when using a gun in self defense, you are always using it to kill your attacker. Often it's presence alone resolves the conflict. There are many examples of when mass shooters in public areas are confronted by law-abiding citizens with their own gun, and either surrender or kill themselves with out the law-abiding citizen hurting anybody themselves.
In an ideal world, yes there would be no need to carry guns. But we do not live in such an ideal world and it would be inappropriate to pass laws pretending that we do.
In Japan you cannot own gun, there never been a mass shooting same in UK, in US dies 33 people a day by gun. So benevolent gun law does not work, just redneck and gunsmith lobbyist are in favor of that stupidity.
True, but that did not stop school massacres. There is the Osaka school massacre where 8 students were killed by one guy with a knife. If a teacher or faculty member has access to a gun, most of those students lives would have been saved.
there has never been a mass shooting in UK
A quick google search told me otherwise with the story of the hungerfield massacre
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a startling revelation for 2015. It is projected that deaths from guns will surpass deaths from car fatalities in 2015. An estimated 33,000 Americans will lose their lives from guns as opposed to an estimated 32,000 Americans who will die in car accidents.