CreateDebate


Debate Info

77
130
Guns endanger the owner Guns protect the owner
Debate Score:207
Arguments:114
Total Votes:251
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Guns endanger the owner (53)
 
 Guns protect the owner (81)

Debate Creator

rcarrash(18) pic



Guns don't protect anyone, they endanger their owners

Guns do not offer any kind of protection. If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at. Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet. Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests? Why do people believe guns will protect them?

Guns endanger the owner

Side Score: 77
VS.

Guns protect the owner

Side Score: 130
1 point

I guess the only logical option is to make it only legal for a mobster run government to have all the guns.

if yer a n00b
Side: Guns endanger the owner
rcarrash(18) Disputed
1 point

I think the governments should be the first to quit having lethal arsenals, and rather switch to advanced non-lethal weapons to stop criminals. Then criminals would follow by not feeling the need to "protect themselves" with guns against guns.

Side: Guns protect the owner
TzarPepe(792) Disputed
1 point

It is foolish in the art of warfare to broadcast your weaknesses to the enemies.

As far as they need to know, all we have to do is push a button and their country is instantly wiped off the face of the map. They have to believe we are crazy enough to seriously consider this, whether or not we would or are even actually capable of doing this.

No, we need a militia for the security of a free state just as much as we need an armed populace to regulate the militia.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Amarel(5104) Disputed
1 point

First, what advanced non-lethal option to you believe has the stopping power of a gun?

Second, criminals arm up to protect themselves from rivals, not from the government. Disarming law enforcement while murderous criminals still carry is a recipe for disaster.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Jace(4915) Disputed
1 point

From what basis do you presume that criminals use guns because they feel they need to protect themselves against the government? Your causal connection here seems very tenuous and frankly naive. Criminals use guns to commit crimes because they're effective for the task. There's no clear reason why disarming the government would change that, and in fact it seems pretty obvious that it would make them an even more effective tool with which to commit crimes since it makes you literally more lethal than the people who might try to stop you.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
GETREKKEDBOI(1) Disputed
1 point

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh well... I would say your problem begins with the fact that most crimes occur/require the use of a lethal weapon. The fact is you aren't gonna rob a bank with a tazer or beanbag gun. Thus criminals will keep their guns, with all due respect... that idea is crazy at best.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
oofmaster69(2) Disputed
0 points

In the United Kingdom I believe that they have cops with only batons and if someone like a robber or a school shooter or anything came tell me what are they going to do to stop them, charge them? If they had cops with lethal weapons we could stop the shooter and we'd have less casualties and I think that's a good thing.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
1 point

I guess the only logical option is to make it only legal for a mobster run government to have all the guns.

Who do you think elects the government? You can't have it both ways. Either you are a beacon of international freedom with a politically representative government or you are ruled by shady corporate gangsters.

Side: Guns protect the owner
PaulJWatson(9) Disputed
1 point

If a shady government runs the country, we have he right to use guns against them if necessary.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
TzarPepe(792) Disputed
0 points

The first amendment acknowledges my right to recognize a higher authority than this entity that claims to be the state.

My faith isn't in government. My faith isn't in politics. I do however, respect the law of the land. I respect the law of the land because it acknowledges and respects my rights and authorities as a child of God. I answer to a higher power than the entity that claims to be the state. The constitutional law of this land does not conflict with this, for "the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient".

The law of the land also makes it very clear that it is necessary for the security of a free state that people be allowed to keep and bear arms. It is very clear to me that this is the means of regulating the militia. For the people to give up their right to bear arms is the same as the people consenting to slavery.

"Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God!"

Voters elect the entity that claims to be the government. Shady corporate gangsters are always going to think they run things. A politically representative government can still lead to tyranny.

It takes a certain type of personality to be a politician, you know. Not everyone is going to vote. It is probably better that way. Politics is not always the most certain thing.

We all really want the republic though, I'm sure. Even those who don't realize it. Rule by law. We cannot budge on the bill of rights. This is the law that overrides all the other laws. The people who are trying to weaken the bill of rights are UP TO NO GOOD. We all don't really want the democracy, that is rule by majority. Really, it is mob rule. The democratic party, true to form, is run by gangsters. Don't feel too bad if you get schmucked by a gangster, they are called wise guys for a reason. Most of the information that people get about conservatives in America comes from these gangsters. Of course, no one who blindly buys into all that ever seems to consider it for a moment.

Then you get the long history of government programs such as COINTELPROS and Project Mockingbird, and people STILL don't consider it for a moment... Then the head of Amazon Jeff Bezos gets 600 million from the CIA after buying the Washington Post. No, the government still doesn't do any of this stuff, not anymore, no siree.

Some illuminati business going on here, that's for sure. Things aren't always as they seem.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
1 point

Their owners need protecting as 70, 000 gun injuries a year prove what happens when idiots are allowed access to firearms

Side: Guns endanger the owner
outlaw60(15501) Clarified
2 points

Gun violence in the United States is a major national concern that results in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries annually. In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).

The 70,000 reference you refer to makes no claims of the criminals that have guns nor does it state nonfatal drive by shootings.

By the way my guns have never endangered me at anytime but i will continue to arm myself to protect me,my family and my property.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Amarel(5104) Clarified
1 point

Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured.

This excludes suicide.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Amarel(5104) Clarified
1 point

The vast majority of those idiots are not allowed access to firearms, they just don’t care that their not allowed.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Dermot(5469) Clarified
1 point

Yet a fair proportion of idiots do indeed have access to guns ; the amount of injury caused by guns yearly is truly staggering in the U S and the problem remains that guns are the cause of 30;000 deaths annually and 70, 000 injuries

Read below of the idiots who leave unlocked loaded guns within reach of children

Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age. Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.

Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway reported in a 2001 study that regardless of age, people are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides. In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.

Side: Guns endanger the owner

Why do people believe guns will protect them?

Lots of brainwashing from the gun lobby, which is always more than happy to tell Americans what to think.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
3 points

Personal protection weapons offer their owners the opportunity to protect themselves and their family in their home and other more public places.

Your argument appears to be based on the the presupposed premise that the PPW holder is already a target and there would little or no chance the weapon being of any use once the assassin had taken his/her shot.

That is a reasonable assumption in such a scenario, but the holder of a legally licensed weapon would have a vestige of a chance of denying the assassin the opportunity taking the final death shot if the first shot missed or was not fatal.

When a potential life threatening situation is detected the gun holder can prepare to defend themselves or, non menacingly display the firearm.

This would discourage most criminals and send them off to find an easier target.

Side: Guns protect the owner
rcarrash(18) Disputed
2 points

No, weapons offer a remote chance (you said it) to "shoot first" to a target who, in most cases, was willing to shoot in the first place because he felt threatened by the gun of the owner.

Any PPW holder is perceived as a threat and target by other PPW holders, PPW owners own weapons having their targets in mind since the moment they buy a weapon, those targets are other PPW owners! It is not an assumption

Guns do not discourage criminals, they encourage them to get more and more powerful guns. Because they think guns protect them, that's how criminals think

Side: Guns endanger the owner
rcarrash(18) Disputed
1 point

"the presupposed premise that the PPW holder is already a target and there would little or no chance the weapon being of any use once the assassin had taken his/her shot."

How is that a "presupposed premise"????? Please do explain how can a gun stop a bullet that's already on its way. And, yes, people with guns are mostly already targeted. Criminals with guns got the guns in the first place due to the stupid belief that they would be "protecting themselves" against other people with guns. The original idea inside the criminal mind to buy a gun is to use it again anyone else tryin' to shoot at them.

"vestige of a chance"... precisely

"This would discourage most criminals and send them off to find an easier target."

No, gun threat towards criminals is what encourage them to get guns, because the criminal mind believes in the "protection" of guns.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Antrim(1297) Clarified
1 point

My assumption that the assassin's intended victim was already a predetermined target was based on the perfectly reasonable premise that the bullet was speeding towards it's quarry for a reason rather than at random.

Unless there is a direct hit there is no way a holstered firearm could stop a bullet.

As someone who carried a legally licensed personal protection weapon for many years due to a 'standing death threat' from the so called Irish Republican Army my point was that in the event of the assassin's bullet missing or failing to disable the target sufficiently so as to render them wholly ineffective, then the armed person would possibly be able to return fire and therefore have a chance of surviving the murder bid.

Had the filth gone out to fulfill their threat to kill me, then, even with the P.P.W., I'd have had little chance of surviving.

Without the firearm I'd have had absolutely no chance whatsoever.

If your argument was carried out to its natural conclusion then only the bad guys would have guns.

Side: Guns endanger the owner

Guns do not offer any kind of protection.

Tell it to people who have protected themselves, property, or loved ones with a gun.

If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at.

This is a blind claim in the dark, and no evidence supports this claim. It doesn't logically follow that criminals look for victims that can shoot back.

Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet

In theory, the bullet hits me. I or someone else shoots the shooter. He shoots no one else.

Side: Guns protect the owner
rcarrash(18) Disputed
2 points

"Tell it to people who have protected themselves, property, or loved ones with a gun."

I don't know any person who has, not one single... This looks like a blind claim from yourself... do you have any statistics?

"It doesn't logically follow that criminals look for victims that can shoot back."

Not criminals, but policemen do... here's a link talking about the differences between USA and UK /where policemen are unarmed) https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/

Now, on the other hand, gangsters mostly attack policemen and other gangsters (both armed)

"In theory, the bullet hits me. I or someone else shoots the shooter. He shoots no one else."

In theory, stop gun production, no onehas guns, no one shoots anybody else.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
PaulJWatson(9) Disputed
1 point

In theory, it'd take a century to even get close to rounding up all of the existing guns.

In theory, guns would still illegally pour across the Mexican border like drugs do.

In theory, it takes 10 minutes to make a gun capable of killing someone. Youtube shows you how.

In reality, almost all gun homicides are by gangs, and gangs aren't willingly disarming.

Side: Guns protect the owner
WinstonC(1232) Disputed
-1 points

"I don't know any person who has, not one single... This looks like a blind claim from yourself... do you have any statistics?"

It's rather obvious that some people would have successfully used a gun for the purposes of self defense but here, browse the 1422 verified cases on this site (Source 1). This is by no means a complete list.

Sources:

(1) http://gunssavelives.net/browse-stories/

Side: Guns protect the owner
1 point

Tell it to people who have protected themselves, property, or loved ones with a gun.

Shut up bronto. Go make the argument that guns protect you to the millions of families which have lost loved ones because of gun violence.

This is a blind claim in the dark

It's basic common sense, dopey. You are more likely to use a gun if you have one, and therefore you are more likely to see return fire. If the point of owning a gun is that you can "protect" yourself from dangerous situations as you claim, then this very fact means you are more likely to enter a dangerous situation with confidence rather than caution.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
PaulJWatson(9) Disputed
1 point

Shut up bronto. Go make the argument that guns protect you to the millions of families which have lost loved ones because of gun violence...

...that is caused by gangs, which is caused by illegal immigration. And of course, outside of the military, millions of people haven't been killed by gun violence. And you aren't promoting disarming the military.

Side: Guns protect the owner
2 points

It's hard to say exactly where the statistics go wrong here, since they aren't cited, but every study I've seen has failed to establish a causal relationship by controlling for relevant variables like firearms safety training, etc. If you don't know how to use your gun, aren't prepared to use lethal force, etc. then of course not having a gun won't help you (and will probably put you at more risk). But people who know how to use a gun and are prepared to use lethal force to protect themselves or others can and have done so.

Now, you want to point to the consistently strong correlations between per capita gun ownership and per capita gun violence then we can talk. But that's a question of national policy practices and outcomes, not of the personal choice of ownership and personal practice of self-protection.

Side: Guns protect the owner
Jace(4915) Clarified
1 point

Edit: [...] then of course having a gun won't help you (strike the "not" in that portion).

Side: Guns endanger the owner
1 point

"Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet."

You're right, if a bullet is imminently about to hit you then having a gun won't prevent it.

What about in a situation where someone breaks into your house or one where someone is approaching you with a knife, for but two examples.

Side: Guns protect the owner
1 point

What about in a situation where someone breaks into your house

Killing someone for entering a part of the world you say he isn't allowed to be in is not morally acceptable and frankly there is something wrong with you if you feel otherwise.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
WinstonC(1232) Disputed
3 points

So is it OK if I break into your house?

Side: Guns protect the owner
JimFour7(108) Disputed
1 point

I'm proud to be a Texan where the law clearly states that an intruder on your property is grounds for the use of lethal force. Aim for the center of mass and empty the chamber. A warning shot or a trunk shot could be your last mistake in life. That simple straightforward law leaves no doubt in the that split second that as a homeowner you will not be arrested or charged.

Side: Guns protect the owner
rcarrash(18) Disputed
0 points

"What about in a situation where someone breaks into your house"

Well, that's why I lock my house, it's a lot easier, cheaper and safer... and it really really works, no one has ever ever broken into my house because it is locked you know?

"or one where someone is approaching you with a knife"

Well, again, that has not happened either...not ever, because, you know it's not the 1800's. But, in a hypothetical case, I would first run towards a crowd of people, that would most likely persuade him from doing anything. if not, I would give him my wallet and cell phone, I seriously doubt he was there just to kill me... If that doesn't work I would practice my best kung fu on him.. but I still don't feel I need to be carrying a gun with me all the time just in case this very unlikely scenario happened.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
Jace(4915) Disputed
3 points

There's this crime category called B&E;, ever heard of it? It's where people break locks and enter the property. Just because no one has ever broken into your house doesn't mean they won't, and locking up is a deterrent but not a guarantee. You might be comfortable with that precaution, but what actually makes your practice more reasonable?

Robberies and assaults at knife point, also a thing. Statistically unlikely to happen? Sure. You're fine with relying on placation or kung fu? Fine. But, again, what actually makes your standard so much more reasonable than someone who wants to be armed because that's how they prepare for the unlikely?

Side: Guns protect the owner
JimFour7(108) Disputed
1 point

The easy cheap way is not appropriate for defending your life and your family. Being unprepared for unlikely scenarios probably is a accurate description for countless murder victims final moments alive.

Side: Guns protect the owner
WinstonC(1232) Disputed
1 point

"Well, that's why I lock my house, it's a lot easier, cheaper and safer... and it really really works, no one has ever ever broken into my house because it is locked you know?"

So the crime of breaking and entering never occurs?

"Well, again, that has not happened either...not ever, because, you know it's not the 1800's. But, in a hypothetical case, I would first run towards a crowd of people, that would most likely persuade him from doing anything. if not, I would give him my wallet and cell phone, I seriously doubt he was there just to kill me."

It's happened to me twice but then again I live in the U.K. where we banned guns and now all the criminals just use knives. What if it happens in a dark alleyway or somewhere else that you cannot escape from (such as your room). Maybe he would just want to mug you (you should still have the means to to defend your property) but perhaps he wants to kidnap and/or rape you. Without a weapon you are completely at his mercy.

"If that doesn't work I would practice my best kung fu on him."

Look, maybe you are a kung-fu master but even for a master it is very dangerous to fight somebody with a knife. This doesn't even take into account that your attacker could simply have a gun instead.

"but I still don't feel I need to be carrying a gun with me all the time just in case this very unlikely scenario happened."

That's fine, but some people live in neighborhoods where these situations occur often (I used to). In addition, simply because you don't want the means to defend yourself doesn't mean you should take it away from others.

Side: Guns protect the owner
Antrim(1297) Clarified
0 points

Burglars almost always carry some type of offensive weapon so in the event of an intruder approaching you in your home it would be very prudent to shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

If the housebreaker is retreating then a warning shot to the back of the head should suffice.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
1 point

I'm pretty sure concealed carry solves all this.

I'm totally for open carry, don't get me wrong... But it is definitely more polite to conceal a firearm. It is good to think of the nerves of other people. Not everyone is a civilized Texan, you know.

Side: Guns protect the owner
1 point

I'm pretty sure concealed carry solves all this.

Yes, if your victim is unaware that you intend to shoot him in the face it solves everything. Good point.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
TzarPepe(792) Clarified
1 point

I've got an even better solution.

Texas.

Maybe the rest of you can't handle guns because you aren't civilized enough.

Side: Guns endanger the owner
1 point

Guns don't protect anyone, they endanger their owners

Right? I mean cops have been complaining for years about having to carry a gun. Their already dangerous job is made worse by the gun they carry that doesn’t even protect them. What’s weird is how almost all cops extend this hazard to their off time by carrying a gun while not at work...

Side: Guns protect the owner
1 point

If you own a gun, chances are you are more likely to get shot at.

Please explain how carrying a firearm makes me a more desirable target than someone who can't shoot back at an attacker, especially if my weapon is concealed.

Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet.

True. They might also miss. They might also hit someone else. They also might be armed with something other than a gun. If I can shoot back, I can prevent further carnage. If it's an active shooter, that might mean a body count of two or three instead of a body count of ten or more. Also note, the capability to shoot back is often what's important. Most people who want to start trouble are going to do it somewhere else if you wave a gun in their face.

Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests?

Yes, but there are two inherent problems with that. One- I don't know if you've ever put on a bulletproof vest, but they're heavy, and bulky, and impractical. Definitely something you don't want to be wearing every time you go out. Second, if you get shot once and your vest takes it, that's definitely better than taking a bullet in major organs. But if you can't shoot back and eliminate the threat, now what? Either they adjust their aim and shoot you in the head, or they just hit you in the vest again, because most vests are pretty much worthless after the first shot.

Why do people believe guns will protect them?

Because they do. There are no concrete numbers on this, but defensive uses of firearms are estimated to occur between 50,000 (by the VPA, an anti- gun organization) to 2 million (by the NRA) times per year in the United States.

I ask you to consider: There are people in this world that want to rape you. There are people who want to rob and kill you. Some of them don't even need a reason. If you ever encounter one of these people, what is your actual plan to get out of this situation alive? And is it realistic? Because as far as I can see, your best chance is to shoot back.

Peace, love & good whiskey.

Side: Guns protect the owner

{Once a bullet comes your way, there's no way your gun will "protect" you (or anyone near you) from that bullet.}

but the gun may be helpful to stop further ejection of bullets (:p, that is if the other person is without a bulletproof vest)

{Shouldn't we all be protecting ourselves with bulletproof vests? Why do people believe guns will protect them?}

that is the defensive and guns are on the attacking side

once u have a gun

there is a possibility that the shower of bullets may stop or the cause might get intimidated

i personally prefer being on attacking side

Side: Guns protect the owner
1 point

I'm going to have to go with the classic, it absolutely depends on the owner. If they are an idiot and don't practice gun safety then they are a danger to themselves and others. If they are responsible and handle their gun with care then it's good for protections. But it depends on the user.

Side: Guns protect the owner