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.
First off that is a single story, so the idea that this 'proof' is even at all significant can be rejected without further investigation.
Secondly, your argument is that guns are alright because they can be used to stop crime. My argument is that risk of death attributed to guns is significantly higher in the US, because you have extraordinarily many guns, which is worse than however many lesser crimes are prevented. We don't like crime of any sorts, but arguably the worst thing that can happen is people being killed.
Actually, in a situation where a citizen stops a shooting compared to a police officer, the citizens have an average loss of life of 2.3 while police have an average of 14.3. 32 people may die daily, but an average of 2,191 people save their lives daily by using a gun. Or around 2 million people yearly! The reason guns are more dangerous to be around is because they are dangerous. Plain and simple. It's the stupid person who leaves his guns around unlocked and loaded in reach of others. It's the smart gun owner to keep it unloaded and locked up in a safe. The solution isn't banning guns, but showing people how to properly care for them. Then we can prevent negligent killings.
Okay so now we are in the business of controlling human behaviour, so why don't we just cut to the root of the problem and make people peaceful, instead of playing around with teaching people how to deal with their death-toys?
Did I say human behavior? Safety is easy to show, more logical than banning guns and leaving over 2,000 people to go to their deaths everyday. What you are trying to achieve is impossible. You can't make everyone love each other.
The solution isn't banning guns, but showing people how to properly care for them.
I know we can't make anyone love each other, and that was my exact point.
You were saying we should change how people deal with guns. That would be an attempt to change human behavior. I said that since we are in the business of dealing with human behavior we might as well deal with the root of the problem. You then explained that it would be absurd to make everyone love each other. I think your criticism goes right back at yourself. You can't make stupid people not stupid.
It isn't human behavior I'm wanting to fix. That would be like trying to make everyone less violent, or feel a certain way. Teaching someone to keep a firearm unloaded and help them get a safe for it isn't changing human behavior. People don't have a natural urge to leave guns around where others can grab them, or keep a firearm loaded and in reach of children. Behavior is how someone acts to someone else or how they react. Teaching someone how to keep a firearm safely is more of a physical situation rather than a behavioral one, actually teaching them how to handle a weapon and store it safely. It would seriously be the same if I taught you how to use a blender and not get your fingers caught in it.
Lazyness might perfectly well not be in the same category as compassion, but to propose it isn't a defining trait in human behavior is obviously wrong. Teaching people how to deal with weapons is one thing. Making people actually follow rules is quite another. You are hoping people won't be lazy, etc, but that's just that; you are hoping people will act accordingly when you tell them what to do. If that were the case we wouldn't need guns in the first place, because then people wouldn't commit crimes.
Which would be nice, but it is never going to happen in humanities history, so why do you want to try it? It is not going to work. Teaching them the safety is important, but whether they follow it is up to them, it's free choice. Making people actually follow the rules is impossible, I know that. So what makes you think Americans will follow gun-control laws when the government tells us what to do? According to human behavior, they won't. So why make it hard on everybody and ban them?
I am not so cocksure. I am just trying to convey the idea that it might not be the best idea to have literally tons of weapons in a community. When and how the amount of guns should be reduced I have no idea of.
However, what I am sure of is that if you want to maintain that "making people actually follow the rules is impossible", you will have to agree that we have to physically restrict people if we want to change things. If we want to change things we can't depend on an assumption that people 'will do the right thing'.
Now if we agree that it's a problem that people have effective means of killing each other (and I am aware that's one very big if), you will have to agree that we need to "make it hard on everybody and ban them", because "according to human behavior, they won't" follow rules.
Whether it's a problem that people can kill each other in the blink of an eye is another debate entirely of course.
But the thing is, there is no good reason to ban them. I have shown you that more people would be victimized and killed if guns are banned and instead of 32 deaths daily, it would be around 2,000. Guns are the first line of defense of your home, your person, and your country. If you are enough of a scholar, you should know that histories greatest atrocities and genocides were not caused by citizens, but by governments. All of whom disarmed their populace.
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you have much faith in people. Some people will not do the right thing, true. But the vast majority of people are smart, informed people that can make logical decisions. If they are smart enough to handle your stocks, teach your children at school, advise you on your health, advise you on your financial future, you vote for them to represent you, and care enough to be your friend, then they are probably smart enough to safely handle a firearm and have the right to defend themselves and their families. They just need to have the opportunity to be shown how if they choose to own a firearm.
If you seriously want to forcefully disarm people, you are going to have to put a gun to their heads, or a gun to the heads of their wife, or daughter, or son, or husband, because they would probably rather die than give up their right. That would make you a person equal to Hitler if you decided to do something like that.
And seriously, you just defeated yourself. If you ban them, people will not follow that rule. It isn't because they won't follow the rules, it's because it gives power to the government under the cover of protecting you. Why make 150 million Americans criminals and have them not follow the rules? They are not doing anything wrong. Banning them will not make them just give up and follow the rules, but the complete opposite, making it way worse than before.
Well of course we wouldn't want to ban them just like that, I agree with you entirely.
I am sorry for reiterating, what I have previously said. ". I am just trying to convey the idea that it might not be the best idea to have literally tons of weapons in a community. When and how the amount of guns should be reduced I have no idea of."
That's all I want to say. I don't at all sympathize with Obama's plans to take away your guns, but I if the status quo can be changed in a democratic, reasonable manner I think you ought to follow through.
You don't seem to care or even to be aware of the fact that the primary reason for the right to keep and bear arms is for the people to have the means to defend themselves... even against the tyranny of their own government (should it ever to become necessary for them to do so - again).
I am aware of that fact yes. I am sorry for reiterating but I think doing so is kind of appropriate:
"I am just trying to convey the idea that it might not be the best idea to have literally tons of weapons in a community. When and how the amount of guns should be reduced I have no idea of."
"I don't at all sympathize with Obama's plans to take away your guns, but I if the status quo can be changed in a democratic, reasonable manner I think you ought to follow through."
We have a government in Denmark. We don't have guns. We don't think we need guns to protect ourselves from each other. I am not saying that you should take away your right to keep and bear arms right now. I am only proposing that it's an ideal that might become realistic sometime in the future.
I think that you might have a different point of view if you actually had the same history in your country that we do ours. In other words, our demand for guns (to defend ourselves and our liberties) is a direct result of having to use guns to secure those rights and freedoms in the first place. We don't trust our government and we (many of us) don't believe we ever should trust that much power to a government again.
It's just not going to happen because that mindset is passed from generation to generation from one gun owning person to another.
You would have to convince me (an a lot of others) about how having zero weapons would be ideal. Especially, when it is a given that legal or not... Criminals are going to have them.
Well I don't think it is going to be very hard to convince people, if only I could express myself clearly...
When I say that it would be ideal to have no weapons I am intending to express what I am litterally saying. It would be ideal if no one had weapons, not criminals, not police (although they should obviously have some kind of non-lethal way of controlling people).
I disagree if criminals get killed I consider that a great thing. It's a simple fact that banning guns dose not stop crime it simply makes it Easier for the criminals to intimidate the citizens. The worst thing is leavening innocents at the mercy of criminal gangs with no means of defense.
Dude, we don't have to justify our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to them. If they want to take away our right? They are going to have to amend the Constitution and prevail in the courtrooms.
On the thought that someone has attacked me or broke into my home what would I do to protect myself? Well, I would grab my gun. The police have a twenty minute response time because I live outside of a town. I could die in those twenty minutes. Is there any other way to protect myself?
I think you missed the point. The argument gun users use is "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" So I was just applying that same logic to guns saving people.
I don't exactly understand what the point of disputing or even responding is. It's very obvious that a gun won't just fire, the whole point of my comment was sarcasm.
Your damn right that's how it is here. If you threaten my life, my friends, my family, of my property I'll send your sorry ass the The Lord boy you best believe that.
And you'll risk getting killed in the process? Thats a really stupid selfish decisión. You had to get yourself killed and leave your family alone just for the sake of money?
The Smart thing to do in such a situation is not to return fire. Just give them the money - it is only money. Despite being a capitalist nation I guess you can see that your life is more valuable than that.
This is ignoring the fact that some of us believe that killing is wrong.
If you practice your aim and quick draw you want have to worry about death they will hit the ground before they know what's going on. My home is my castle my loved ones and property are my treasure and any one who wants to try to harm or steal what's mine is going to hell end of story. And it's not that I don't think killing is wrong but killing in self defense is at least justified. the smart thing to do is give them the money you mean give in to intimidation? No thanks my parents didn't raise any cowards. I work hard to get what I have and I ain't giving it up to anyone and that's final.
This all sounds very heroic. I can almost hear Amazing Grace as I read it :P. The fact is that no matter how good a shooter you are there is still a chance of them shooting first when they see you have a gun. Its not worth risking it for the sake of money or 'honour'.
Its difficult for me to relate to fully but I suppose its like in the UK, if someone comes into your house with a knife, then you pick up a knife and attack them. Its just something law enforcement would never advise risking your life that way.
Where I live many law enforcement officials including the sheriff support privet ownership of firearms because they know the only one who can protect your home and family is you. And death is a risk I'm willing to take for you see there are two sources of oppression governments and criminals and I will die before I give in to oppression.
Oh come on. You know full well that when someone robs a place they don't want to kill people. All they want is the money. Its selfish to risk your own death and deprive your family of you. The issues seems to be pride more than anything else.
Sad? Those scum bags got what they deserved a bullet in the ass. And if you practice regularly the bad guy won't have time to return fire.Just rememper the 6 P's Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance
Any loss of life is sad. Its a shame that you can't see the human behind the bad deed. That is a very American though. The line between the good guys and the bad guys are always so clearly defined.
Its a shame that you cant see the human behind the bad deed When Something threatens me I eliminate the threat it doesn't matter what it is. If it presents a danger to me its going down.
thats a very American thought. The line between the good guys and the bad guys are always so clearly defined yes they are actually the guys doing bad things like threatening innocent people are the bad guys and the guys standing up to them are the good guys clear as can be.
yes they are actually the guys doing bad things like threatening innocent people are the bad guys and the guys standing up to them are the good guys clear as can be
Exactly. I guess you can always kill the bad guys after they've commited the crime too. Its helpful that you have public criminal records to make it easier to hunt them down.
I just wanted to point out stupidity of his argument ...he can be easily killed no matter how many weapons he is carrying. Simply because most of victim does not know that the thread is coming.
That quote is by Mahandas/Mahatma Ghandi and I found the following which refutes the context you seem to using the quote in (if your not using it to try and prove that even the most famous practioner of non violent protest was pro individual gun ownership forgive me)
"Pro-gun activists frequently use those words to suggest that Gandhi supported individual gun ownership both as a means of defending oneself and as a tool to violently resist government tyranny. But are these assertions true?
In that passage, Gandhi references India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry firearms but prevented Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. The full text of what he wrote is: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.” These words come from a World War I recruitment pamphlet that Gandhi published in 1918, urging Indians to fight with their British colonial oppressors in the war, not against them. According to K.P. Nayar, chief diplomatic editor for The Telegraph in Calcutta, Gandhi saw “an opportunity for a political struggle against the colonial rulers and for the repeal of the unjust Arms Act,” not “for more Indians to have access to guns.” Peter Brock, a noted historian of nonviolence, wrote in his article “Gandhi’s Nonviolence and His War Service” that Gandhi “believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.” The British, that is, would regret passing the Arms Act because they’d discover Indians to be such valuable fellow soldiers.At this time, Gandhi was still a British loyalist. He hoped to encourage the British to repeal the Arms Act and grant India Home Rule within the British Empire. In his autobiography, Gandhi quotes a letter he wrote to the viceroy of India during the war, in which he declared, “I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”Gandhi wanted Indians to fight in World War I to prove themselves trustworthy with arms and fit for citizenship. He was advocating for appeasement of India’s colonial rulers, not independence from them. Later, Gandhi’s thinking on this subject would change dramatically, but when he did initiate a campaign for full independence from the British Empire, he advocated only nonviolent means of resistance.
Pro-gun activists frequently try to claim with that one, out-of-context sentence that Gandhi supported violence to defend oneself and others. This is a vast oversimplification of Gandhi’s views."
There was more to the article but I copied the part that put his words in context
I never insinuated that Ghandi supported violent ressistance. But he did realize that depriving people the use of arms is an evil thing to do as it endangers their lives. That's why he wanted it repealed that's why he encouraged the Indian people to help the British and gain there trust.
Yes but they were stopped by an armed citizen thus showing that you don't need to fear armed assailants so long as you yourself are armed. As the saying goes "god made man. Sam Colt made man equal"
But not everyone can afford guns or lessons on how to use them. It would be fairer if there were no guns at all. It's like nuclear arms: it is unfair for only one country to have them, but it would be best if they were never created in the first place. (Countries being likened to people or social groups)
Okay but how do you propose we get rid of all guns considering:Criminals won't register their guns, criminals can and do bye guns illegally through the black market, the black market is a world wide entity supplied by criminals, terrorists, and corrupt governments that would require untold amounts of money, global cooperation (as in every single government in the world no exceptions) to bring down.
And sure we might have been better if guns were never invented or not we may never know and that's not what the focus of this debate is.
And most hand guns don't cost more that maybe a couple hundred dollars. Less if you bye them online or from a privet citizen. And lesions are also usually quite affordable. If my brother a collage student working for minimum wage (plus tips) can afford a rifle than trust me most people can.
My point is that guns are as good as nuclear weapons. We only need them because other people have guns- this does not make guns a crime-stopping force for good. They are a neutral killing machine, like an assassin.
(By the way, autocorrect has given you some funny typos)
But un fortunately the bad guy have guns and currently we have no way of changing that. So the best thing to do is make sure you are armed and ready to defend your self.
No where in the article did it say that anyone other that the suspects died and if you go to the source article it says that no one was injured (other than the dead burglars of course.) P.s I down voted your argument because it made no sense.
Is that the actual murder rate? Of is that just the homicide rate? If its the homicide rate then I challenge you to look up how many of those killings were classified as justifiable homicides (self defense) if its the actual murder rate I'm willing to bet you it's minute compared to our over all homicide rate. Do you know what the number one killer in the US is? Drunk driving should we ban cars too? After all by gun grabber logic they kill more people than guns (even though neither guns nor cars kill people its the people operating them but ssshhh you just ignore that part I wouldn't want to overload your brain)
You know what's interesting? According to the FBI the majority of gun murders are between criminals as in gang members shooting one-another interesting isn't it. That's a lot of criminals dead (contented sigh) beautiful sight.
But seeing as how they are being perpetrated by people who are already hardened criminals many of whom have felonious records and for whom firearms ownership is already illegal I don't see how a gun ban will do anything to prevent these murders.
In countries were are weapons banned are illegal weapons very expensive, random freaks cannot afford them there are also many cops undercover so seller never knows to whom is he selling... it works that way in Japan. Or compromise like in Czech Republic. If you pass trough screenings and pay for your training and licence you may get Class E and you can buy a handgun but you can have only standard ammo, no silencers, lasers etc. However if you harm anyone or forgot the weapon somewhere you will most likely end up in prison same if you get positive on booze or drugs. Only really responsible people are capable of keeping weapons in long term...
An amendment is an amendment whether it was from the 18th century or not. I wont deny however that much has changed since the 18th century but letting the government walk all over you and taking away your right to have a gun is wrong.
In order for a gun to kill someone it has to be used to that end it cannot do that on its own. However the mere presence of a gun in the position of an intended target or bystander has been known to stop a crime from occurring so in a way guns by them selves (without being used) can and have prevented crimes.
Unless guns are illegal in which case the criminal might assume or know that you as a law abiding citizen wouldn't carry a real gun and if you were a criminal carrying a real gun you wouldn't carry it in such a fashion so as to have it clearly visible and deduce that it must be fake. Criminals may be dumb but they know their field as well as any professional (the successful ones anyway) besides what about in the situations in which you do have to use a gun?
Japan also has a better education system, higher employment rate, virtually zero immigration and an honor based society. and thus fewer criminals than us.
Their society and culture was made over thousands of years. Sure fixing our education system and getting unemployment under control would help but for the other two things we would need to stop immigration (easy for them because they are an island not so for us) and adopt a completely new culture (and given un like the Japanese which share a common nationality and history america is so divers due to years of immigration we can't even decide on which language to use when wrighting signs seriously we have so many different cultures present in our country we make people with multiple personality disorder look normal so such a thing doesn't seem practical)
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.
