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.
Is this statement true pertaining to owning and bearing personal weapons known as firearms
There are many who are in favor of has been called “gun control” and/or all out prohibition/banishment.They claim to be advocating the abolishment of what they refer to as “gun-violence and/or gun-crime”.Yet, there is a track record down throughout history, much of it occurring in the last one hundred years, of personal disarmament first, then, mass homicide a.k.a. “genocide” and “democide”; the latter defined as “death by Government.” As defined in the link: http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/dbg.chap2.htm
There seems to be a pattern showing that it is not wise to give up personal possession of firearms in the name of some noble sounding, yet, largely naïve cause or because government people and politicians said to.The ones who give in to such demands had, do, and will suffer.The distinct possibility of losing their life after turning over their firearms can be seen in the chart link here:
Here is a relevant article from the Wall Street Journal:
The top four on this chart were either in WWI, WWII or a major revolution.
I haven't seen this, but I am interested to know how many countries have their guns and see just as much death. I am thinking of the tribal conflicts in Somalia but I am sure they aren't alone.
I wouldn't go as far as "Absolutely True". I think the government needs us more than that, that they'd just kill us all on the drop of a dime. Yet, if the question is of people giving up their guns, or should they have to, I definitely don't feel they should. If others are so worried about being shot, they too can get a gun. The people who were worried about being killed before got guns, and now look at them, they're the ones scaring you with their guns.
Basically if it's This or That choose the role of Oppressor over Oppressed. Ultimately if everyone's the oppressor, no one is and no one is being oppressed.
As a matter of child safety, it is imminently important that we ban backyard swimming pools which account for more child fatalities in the US than does gun violence.
I think it's funny to see new people starting topics we've just been through a week ago. I wonder if you thought the same about my debates when I started here?
I don't think it's false paranoia - more like .. unnecessary paranoia. If you are feeling that insecure, that you feel like having a gun by your nightstand, it's something wrong with the security in your area or country, and then THAT is what you should fix - not gun laws.
A Texas Ranger pulled over an elderly woman for a traffic violation. As expected, he asks her if she has any weapons in the vehicle. She responds yes and says she has a Colt 1911 in her glove box, a 12 gauge shotgun in the back seat, and a Smith & Wesson revolver in her purse. The Ranger asks what she is afraid of to justify that many weapons on her person. She replies, "absolutely nothing".
It's not a paranoia, per se, but a basic emotion of self-preservation. You don't want to die, I don't want to die, she doesn't want to die. The security is not a huge problem. Our police are very effective at what they do. However, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. They can't react to every situation immediately. So citizens take it into their own hands to defend themselves, because it takes seconds for a criminal to decide to end your life and seconds to defend yourself rather than seconds calling 911 and a few minutes waiting for the police to find your dead body.
If the police is very affective, like you said, a gun shouldn't be needed.
1. I'm not against self-protection. But do you really need a gun to do it? With a gun, you're killing people. Why not learn some self-defense skills, learn to knock a person down without killing him.
When you are carrying a gun, YOU become the villain, and you give everyone a reason to be afraid.
People do learn other skills, but it doesn't help if you are being attacked with a gun. If I become the villain by carrying a firearm, then the police and government officials must be Hitler. Protecting yourself is protected under our constitution. I don't become a villain for shooting someone who is trying to kill me or my family. I regret I had to shoot him, but he gave me absolutely no choice. Also, in a vast majority of cases of self-defense, the gun actually ever being discharged is less than 5%. The mere presentation of it deters crime.
Ah, you've gotten right to the root of the problem. We could make a law preventing either of us from carrying a gun, from either of us purchasing one, or even owning one altogether. The problem is...
Criminals don't follow laws. Never have. Never will. That's why they are criminals. There will still be smuggling, black markets, and shady deals. All these opportunities give a criminal to obtain a firearm. Gun-control laws only hurt the law abiding citizen, because the criminals will just ignore it a anyway. All these past mass-shootings have occurred where carrying a firearm is illegal. They are illegal in schools, governmental buildings, and most public places. And that's where it happens. The one thing they try to prevent is a mass shooting by putting up gun-free zones. That's where mass shooters go because they know no one will be armed. College campuses are a good example. Every collegiate mass shooting has occurred in a gun-free zone. Every college that allows staff or certain students to concealed carry, has never had a mass shooting. Ever. Why make the vast majority of US citizens criminals with gun-control laws when they have done nothing wrong? It's like punishing the entire class because one student threw paint on the teacher.
Criminals do kill. I am not saying we should bow down to their level though. It depends on values, morality, and logic to make a decision. The problem with criminals is that they have none of these when they kill another human being. When a citizen kills a criminal in self-defense it is legal to do so if he has probable cause of fear of death to him, his family, or a bystander. The decision to pull that trigger and to end a mans life is a heavy one. The difference between citizen Joe and the criminals is that Joe thinks about what he has done and lives with that for the rest of his life. It takes a part of his being for doing that. A criminal makes no thought of it, conditioned to feel no remorse, regret, or pain when killing another person. It's just another day.
Unfortunately, the world is never going to be peaceful enough to end all violence. Criminals are still going to kill for the rest of eternity. We, though, should never bow down to their level. They kill for pleasure, thrill, or because they felt like it. Joe kills only for necessity because he fears that that criminal is going to end his life, or his wife's, or his daughter's. It is better to have it now and use it, then to have never had it and die by the hands of a killer.
That's your opinion. I may disagree with it, but I respect your decision. However, guns are here to stay in America, and I'm going to fight my hardest to keep them here.
Also, this has been a good debate. I've havent had one like that in a while. I appreciate a good intellectual battle. Thank you.
Also, this has been a good debate. I've havent had one like that in a while. I appreciate a good intellectual battle. Thank you.
Like wise :)
About the other thing - I don't want to make guns disappear. I just disagree with letting everybody have one. I think only trained people should be allowed to carry guns, and only people with a clean record at the police station.
Carrying a gun doesn't MAKE you a villain. I agree that everyone should have mace or tazer or the like, but when actual villains have guns, it is necessary for actual good people to have them as well. Cops cannot do their job everywhere and at all times.
Point is that weapon does not protects you. It's very rare that someone manages defend himself with a weapon. Random person still can kill you with a rock. Best protection is living in place without weapons. Japan for example.
Perhaps but, that is personal choice and circumstance. Even if I wanted to leave the country, it does not mean I have the means to. But, then, I do not want to leave. Why should I? Quite frankly, I have not met anyone who supports having guns that were violent people. They are pretty peaceful.
Also, it happens that people have used a weapon in self-defense quite a few times, but it was hardly reported. More have been shown, recently, though. So the rarity is debatable.
It is not rare. It happens to thousands of people everyday. Over 2,100 use a weapon in self-defense. For example, Chicago has the strictest gun-control in the country, yet leads in murder rates. I just got back from a trip there and while I was there there were 11 people shot in half-an-hour. None of them could defend themselves because it was illegal! Looking at Japan versus the USA is like trying to find similarities between an apple and a zucchini. The cultures are completely different. Japan is very homogenous culturally which prevents many race-related crimes, Japan has a more invasive and prominent police force, and crime in general is looked down upon socially. America, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Japan socially and culturally. There are more racial divides in crime, the police are very good but can't protect everyone in America, and the culture has de-sanitized Americans towards violence. You can't fix it, it is there and it's going to stay. The answer is not guns, but fixing up poverty, violence, and hatred between Americans, which is going to take a long time.
In crime, there are very useful. Why do you think the police has them? During the LA riots, a man's house was being attacked by the mob. In defense, he hid his family, then climbed on his roof with his AR-15 and showed himself to the mob. The mob avoided attacking his house, thus saving him and his family. In home invasions, AK-47's and AR-15's are used to defend the homeowner (they also make great hunting platforms).
Many studies have shown that the vast majority of crimes happen in more poverty stricken areas. Living in there is dangerous. A group in Texas is conducting a study with homeowners in rougher neighborhoods. They are giving a free shotgun and training to anybody who qualifies, and studying whether it reduces crime in that neighborhood. Letting law-abiding homeowners own firearms lets them defend themselves, making the criminals more afraid of doing crimes in that area. If we can keep a neighborhood safer, then we can start doing other programs, like youth camps, better schools, and community projects to help the local area.
I think it's funny to see new people starting topics we've just been through a week ago. I wonder if you thought the same about my debates when I started here?
I don't think it's false paranoia - more like .. unnecessary paranoia. If you are feeling that insecure, that you feel like having a gun by your nightstand, it's something wrong with the security in your area or country, and then THAT is what you should fix - not gun laws.
Well, it’s always good to look at something from all possible angles. At least, that is how I understand things.
When I said “False Paranoia” I meant it as a way that someone of an opposing view might see it. However, by your next statement you assume every person who owns a firearm has one by their nightstand and this is not necessarily true. Also, the best way to deter crime in a given area would be for the common knowledge of those living there to be that most if not all owners of homes have at least one firearm. A “criminal” would be less inclined to break-in because it is not an easy target. As opposed to areas that force home owners to either conform to gun restriction/prohibition or be non-compliant and called a “criminal” even though they have done no wrong to anyone else. If they conform, they present an easy target; this can be seen in the cities of the U.S. where there is heavy restrictions/prohibition. Crime rates are much higher than areas that are not as heavy.
Finally, the question did not mention fixing anything, but was asking if it is “better to have and not need it(firearms), then, need it and not have it”. Can you tell me how this is false?
Its not the disarmament that causes the genocide its just one thing that could happen to accommodate genocide. Another thing that helps genocide is having a list of people with their ethnicity. However, this isn't a reason for keeping a national census - there are real advantages to keeping a national census. Similarly there are real advantages to disarmament.
Its not the disarmament that causes the genocide its just one thing that could happen to accommodate genocide. Another thing that helps genocide is having a list of people with their ethnicity. However, this isn't a reason for keeping a national census - there are real advantages to keeping a national census. Similarly there are real advantages to disarmament.
Perhaps, but, that does not answer the question of whether it is better to have one(firearm) and not need it, than, need it and not have it.
The reference made to genocide and "democide" are only examples of a track record through out the past one hundred years of gun restriction/prohibition and the end result of what may have been well intentioned at the time, but someone enforced it. That led to murdering millions under the guise of trying to tell someone that they cannot own something for a personal use. Disarmament is an advantage to those who seek to do harm.
The crime stats that are thrown around do not speak to the actuality of a person's experience. Ultimately, you face someone intent on doing you bodily harm, facing imminent death, if you have nothing to protect yourself with, such as, a weapon, like a firearm.
Therefore, having a firearm or weapon in general is better even if the need is not immediate, then if it is immediate and one does not have that means of protecting themselves.
If you cherry pick some statistic then yes :D ... proble is how is defined violent crime. FBI defines violent as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Nothing else
UK Home office The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.” also things like carrying knife in public, causing alarm...etc
if you cut it down then UK has much less crime than US
Also Murder rate in UK 1.2 and in US 4.8 per 100,000
If you cherry pick some statistic then yes :D ... proble is how is defined violent crime. FBI defines violent as murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Nothing else
UK Home office The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.” also things like carrying knife in public, causing alarm...etc
if you cut it down then UK has much less crime than US
Also Murder rate in UK 1.2 and in US 4.8 per 100,000
35 shoot in UK per year 11,078 in US...
Now you are getting into broad definitions of what a crime is. How can one be compared to another if possessing a firearm in the US is not criminal unless or until used in the initiation of violence upon another person, ie a crime, such as: rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping. In other words threatening and/or action taken by violent physical attack.
What you said is pretty weak evidence if any relevance at all.
It's not a week evidence, You argument is based on comparison of two numbers, where both were results of different methods.
If you dispute my argument and the evidence I presented, then, present counter evidence. Site some sources. I provided the link to the chart to show the pattern that has taken place in recent history over one hundred years.
Are there flaws in the argument? Show it. I already showed evidence to support it. Saying "No you are just wrong, because I said so," does not make it so.
I've explained to you that there is a different definition of crime in both countries you your number is useless you aren't comparing equal data sources....
I've explained to you that there is a different definition of crime in both countries you your number is useless you aren't comparing equal data sources....
So, basically we said the same things in different words? Is this what you meant?
If so, then, I probably should have supported what you said. However, I did give a generally excepted definition or understood meaning of what a "crime" truly is, granted not a typical legal definition, yet, one that I don't think many would disagree. To quote what I am referring to:
In other words threatening and/or action taken by violent physical attack.
Would you agree with the quote above of my previous words? I will explain further what I mean by it. The initiation or first action, taken in the use of violence (aggression with no valid reason) upon another person.
That is intended for further explanation in hopes of being understood in my meaning; not as an insult to your's or anyone else's intelligence.
So, basically we said the same things in different words? Is this what you meant?
If so, then, I probably should have supported what you said. However, I did give a generally excepted definition or understood meaning of what a "crime" truly is, granted not a typical legal definition, yet, one that I don't think many would disagree. To quote what I am referring to:
You cannot compare FBI statistics with Home Office Statistics because they both have different definition of crime. UK definition is more complex
Would you agree with the quote above of my previous words? I will explain further what I mean by it. The initiation or first action, taken in the use of violence (aggression with no valid reason) upon another person.
That is intended for further explanation in hopes of being understood in my meaning; not as an insult to your's or anyone else's intelligence.
:-)
UK also counts non violent attacks which are the majority. For example if I call you "cunt" in public and you report it it will go into the statistics, but not in the US. FBI counts only serious stuff, actual physical violence. UK counts everything, that's why it looks like there is more crime .
You cannot compare FBI statistics with Home Office Statistics because they both have different definition of crime. UK definition is more complex
Actually, I'm not comparing either one. I gave a generally excepted idea of what constitutes a "crime". Whether the FBI or UK agree with me does not matter when it comes to the truth.
UK also counts non violent attacks which are the majority. For example if I call you "cunt" in public and you report it it will go into the statistics, but not in the US. FBI counts only serious stuff, actual physical violence. UK counts everything, that's why it looks like there is more crime .
Yes, I understand that. So would you agree with what I said a "crime" is? I will also add that what makes up a crime are three factors: Motive, Opportunity, and Victim.
So, pertaining to the topic of the debate, if a person carries a firearm and this prevents another from committing the criminal act of robbery, for example, then, no "crime" happened. There are many incidents that a crime did not take place because the potential criminal ran away as soon as a gun was stuck in their face; of course after they did the same(brandished a gun) to their intended victim.
By UK legal law personal possession in the form of in the home or carrying is said to be prohibited; I think some hunting rifles might be allowed unless that changed recently. So, if a person has on their person such a weapon and they are caught they are a "criminal". If they use it in self-defense, they are still a "criminal". Relying on numbers to heavily especially with two different countries and different definitions of what is deemed "criminal" seems fallacious.
China, Turkey,Germany, Soviet Union, you could own weapons, most of people decided not to do so. Registration took few minutes, usually just walk in nearest police station ...Jews in Germany couldn't but in general there were no limitation.
Furthermore, good Aryan Germans under Hitler had guns for the purpose of Jew hunting. So it still comes down to the people loosing their guns taking the bullet
If you mean you lived in the Soviet Union, I am sure you weren't there for Stalin's purges which were genocidal in scope. Or did you mean a different country? Ottoman Turkey? Nazi Germany? Mao's China?
You said earlier that the Jews couldn't own guns in Nazi Germany. There seems to be a link in that particular instance. Stalin's purge was against peasants. Most certainly they were outgunned.
I'm not saying that gun restrictions necessarily lead to genocide, but that genocidal tyrants would benefit from it.
True enough. If England decided to start smashing its people, guns would make little difference. But again, I am not saying that gun laws necessarily lead to genocide.
The banning of guns would most certainly lead to a dis-armed ME, which is all that counts when some (likely armed) thug cracks the front door in the middle of the night.
The debate refers to genocide, but the final question is in reference to a statement. "It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it."
This statement is appropriate for the topic.
The right to defend ones self can't be passed off to some one else because it is necessary in instantaneous moments. The right to have a firearm is required only because guns are a fact of existence. We can't ensure that criminals won't have guns, so we cant give them an upper hand.
I don't think I have the right to a tank, but that's ok since no one is going to rob me with a tank.
It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
in most of cases it would kill you. If robber suspects you of having a weapon his assault would be much more aggressive and/or he may kill you just for sure.
Criminals have and edge which you cannot beat with a weapon, it's the surprise factor... They draw first...
If a robber suspects me of having a weapon, the incentive is to move to an unarmed target, not risk it for a pittance. If the element of surprise is what assures criminal victory, then you can give up on self defense all together.
Nox0, are you preaching that we turn the other cheek? Such a good Christian haha.
Lived there, you could own weapon but you would have no use for it.
Okay, so could you practice with it? Also, having the availability of a weapon (assuming you are talking about firearms specifically) was it a benefit or not, personally?
China, Turkey,Germany, Soviet Union, you could own weapons, most of people decided not to do so. Registration took few minutes, usually just walk in nearest police station ...Jews in Germany couldn't but in general there were no limitation.
Yes, according to the chart link I provided they had gun control laws on the books and they site the years of the most restrictive. Please, provide refuting evidence that shows otherwise.
Here is an entry in wikipedia pertaining to worldwide gun restrictions:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics
We are not paranoid. Most gun owners like to COLLECT. If you take away our guns then you will have many other weapons to the availability of people. In China they do not let citizens carry guns. A man killed students with a knife. he killed a whole class by slitting their throats.
We are not paranoid. Most gun owners like to COLLECT. If you take away our guns then you will have many other weapons to the availability of people. In China they do not let citizens carry guns. A man killed students with a knife. he killed a whole class by slitting their throats.
Just wondering what you disagree with then? You seem to be speaking in favor of the statement presented as "Absolutely True" but, you put your argument under "False Paranoia"?
