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.
They shouldn't because gun control will not stop criminals from going out to buy those guns illegally. And having a gun in the house with a certified person could mean the difference between life and death. So no we shouldn't ban guns.
Yet it has a smaller population. More CCTV cameras to catch criminals. UK women are twice as likely to get raped as in America. Gun crime increased in some towns. Less in some, more in others.
That is not why it doesn't work. It isn't that it isn't perfect, it's the fact that guns aren't in control. Over a hundred years ago when guns were legal, there was 1 gun death per year. Now it is 81. Gun deaths have gone up and gun control has been in place. That should be an indicator that it isn't working.
Gun are largely under control. They just aren't as under control as we'd like. It still clearly makes a difference to how many people are killed by guns each year. You must surely see this as a positive thing.
As for your second point: 100 years ago the UK had half the population so that explains why there would be at least double the number of shootings now. Guns are also more accurate, shooters are more likely to get caught, deaths from gun are more likely to be registered. This all goes to show why you'd expect there to be 81 deaths in the last year compared to 1 gun death per year 100 years ago. This is kind of avoiding that 1 gun death per year 100 years ago is probably a completely invented figure.
Okay if you want the want statistics: 0.04/100,000 homicide by gun-fire per population where by gun in 2011 according to the "European Detailed Mortality Database" complied by the World Health Organisation. Compared to 3.2/100,000 in 2010 in USA (reported in the National Vital Statistics Volume 30, number 3, December 29, 2011).
"England is notorious for underreporting gun deaths."
Tell me how England is underreporting gun deaths exactly? Do you have any evidence for that? You think if we find someone that has died of a gun wound then we just don't do a death certificate? We throw the body away as part of some conspiracy? Get real, its not the sort of thing you can cover up.
"I don't see reducing gun deaths as a positive thing. More people die overall when gun deaths are reduced."
Again, any evidence to support that? Our overall homicide rate is much lower than yours too. UK: 1.2/100,000 USA: 4.8/100,000. As you're no doubt aware, more than half of homicides in the USA are by a gun, which helps to explain the USA's rate being much higher.
Get real, its not the sort of thing you can cover up.
Oh really? How about the fact that a triple homicide in England would be reported as one murder thus less gun deaths reported. How do you like them apples?
which helps to explain the USA's rate being much higher
You would like to think so, but the murder rate is higher in the USA in the parts of the country with gun control. You have 0 proof that gun control is the reason that England has less murder. England has always had a lower murder rate than USA. The murder rate for England shows an upward trend over the last decades and USA is on a downward trend. How do you explain that? How do you explain that the murder rate is 4 times higher in USA, but only half is because of guns. What is your explanation for USA having twice as many non gun deaths?
We have implemented gun control in the USA and it does not work, more people die.
Do you have any statistics from before and after gun regulation. Murder goes up when gun control is introduced. Look at the murder rate for England in 1998 after gun regulation was added in 1997.
"Oh really? How about the fact that a triple homicide in England would be reported as one murder thus less gun deaths reported."
Unfortunately for you I'm a law student so you can't bullshit your way through this argument. You're correct that if someone is convicted of a triple murder then then it could (maybe) me reported as one crime if they were rather crudely judging it from the number of criminals. However, the statistics for the number of people killed by guns is compiled by the death certificates, not the crime records.
"You would like to think so, but the murder rate is higher in the USA in the parts of the country with gun control."
"We have implemented gun control in the USA and it does not work, more people die."
Statistics?
"Look at the murder rate for England in 1998 after gun regulation was added in 1997"
If you cite the regulation (and the stats) then I'll look at it. As far as I'm aware posessing firearms have been illegal for much longer than that. At least since the Firearms Act 1968 but I imagine their was an act that predated that.
"How do you explain that? How do you explain that the murder rate is 4 times higher in USA, but only half is because of guns. What is your explanation for USA having twice as many non gun deaths?"
You're right that there must be other factors. It doesn't discount the fact that having guns is one of them.
To me it just seems like a issue of common sense doesnt it? If you give criminals that want to kill access to guns, they're going to use them. Is it easier to kill with a gun than without? Yes. Therefore, more murders.
Can I ask - do you think that if it were legal to posess weaponised anthax, machine guns, rocket launchers, then the rate of murder would also be uneffected?
Common sense? If you take away the guns from the people who will become the victims deaths will go up. Criminals will still have guns because they don't obey the law. So, the law abiding citizens will turn in their guns, and the criminals will keep theirs, and deaths won't go up?
Weaponized anthrax would be impractical to use. I imagine it would hurt the user as well. Rocket launchers would be very ineffective as well for a criminal because the only thing you could accomplish would be to kill. Imagine you are trying to rob someone and you launch a rocket at them, how the heck do you get their wallet now that it is charred remains? Machine guns would really only help for gang wars, as there is really no reason to be firing multiple shots almost ever. One bullet or 10 are effective, so the number of bullets fired would likely not affect much. But death by anthrax, rocket launcher, and machine gun would go up.
Chicago is like the murder capitol of America. Thanks a lot gun control.
What is the proposed plan to "fix" guns in America and how long would it take before it has actually done the job?
You say having dangerous items around means more death, I say people knowing victims might put up a fight makes it less likely for people to be attacked thus less deaths. We both have reasons to believe we are right.
In America suicide accounts for more gun deaths than anything else. And you say that guns make it easier to kill, so wouldn't it make sense that there would be far more suicides in America? Is that the case? No, England and America have almost identical suicide rates. Any explanation for that?
No. Taking a gun away from someone who can respond to a situation is idiotic! They were trained for it! That is not a good idea! It's like removing fire hoses from the fire department because common people are in risk of using it for crime.
Having a certified firearms instructor is a trained professional. A soldier is a trained professional. A police officer is a trained professional. Taking a gun away from them is stupid. They keep us safe.
You highly misunderstand the value of a certified firearms instructor. He has to go through rigorous testing to get certified. Practice. And show he has kept up with his expertise. And if we aren't certified and we are crazed, stressed out maniacs, then why have 99.997% of all firearms in the US NOT been used in a crime today? If the UK is so great in gun crime, why does it still happen?
Your facts are a little outdated. The UK government report from 2012 showed that guns were used in 9974 crimes in the UK. That's an increase from the year before of 7,362. So these statistics show a 1000% difference, not 7300. Now that is still a large amount. However, while the UK gun crime is increasing, ours is decreasing. Between 2010 and 2012, violent crime went down 3.8% in the US. Rape is down 2.5%. But what is funny is that gun ownership has soared in the past few years.
An an anarchist I do not value a certified person more than a non-certified one in any way whatsoever other than respecting the certified person's luck to have been born to a more privileged family.
Say that to the 60 year old man on the verge of death who is only living by the skin of his teeth and worked from the age of 4 in a sweatshop while he looks at the guy with a ton of sports awards and degrees and even a Ph.D who didn't work half as hard as he did.
Say that to the 50 year old retired prostitute who never knew what being a virgin was and cannot remember a day without being molested from her childhood. Who spends every penny she can between her and her friends, helping the child she hopes to raise better than she was but can barely put food in its mouth without giving up her own meal that day. Meanwhile we have rich-ass pornstars making a living out of... Well... The same shit the prostitute did but simply for far more money and far more certification and evidence to go with it to ensure their 'expertise'. But heck does "Kim" (haha let's say Kardashian) have certified awards on television.
What about the bloke who grew up in poverty in a Council house but worked hard went to night school worked hard to get his qualifications, or the guy who was born in similar circumstances but worked hard at school got good grades put himself through College and is now a Paramedic.
Its the truth my Dad grew up on a Council Estate in Shepherds Bush his family had hardly a penny to rub together but he worked hard passed his Insurance exams and ran his own business for many years, his neighbour ran one of the biggest tiling firms in the UK, his firm did the tiling in the O2 Arena and Heathrow Airport and a friend of mine at school who grew up on a Council Estate with not a lot of money is the Paramedic I mentioned. All these Guys did this in the real world and it was all down to their hard work.
Would you admit that all of them, other than the paramedic who I admit is a surprising exception to my rule (since most cultures of poor areas instill values of laziness and lack of hard work on top of lacking facilities to enable it) were LUCKY to have had their businesses bloom (anyone who studies business knows it's always a huge gamble).
I also notice your age and can imagine the era in which your family lived pretty much everyone was poor so it was more fair competition for poor than nowadays.
Of course Luck played its part but it was mainly Hard Work and being self employed businessmen the financial crash in the late 80's caused problems for them both luck runs both ways but we weren't talking about luck we were talking about hard work and your belief that to suceed you had to be born into a wealthy well connected family, I was just proving you wrong.
I guess when my Dad was growing up and started his business there might have been less competition but at the same time there were less chances for a working class lad because the gap between classes was bigger and it was harder to get bank loans to get a business off the ground etc.
Most people cant rely on luck to pass exams they have to work hard, regardless wether its luck or hard work are you now saying that you dont have to be born into a priviledged family to have qualifications/certificates
Its got fuck all to do with where your born you can be born into the fanciest family, go to the best schools, private tutors the lot if your lazy your doomed to fail, unless you are one of those very few people who can put the minimum of effort in to get the maximum out, someone from the lowliest of begininngs can pass their exams and get qualified if they work hard enough. I note your only clinging to your point that my Dad started his Business at a time when the Economic climate was better but have ignored my comments about the Class divide being wider which made it harder to get a business of the ground if you were working class and the fact that he dragged his Business through the economic crash of the late 80's, so your comment about the economic climate of the time is invalid.
What is Prodigee right about? Hes changed his stance on this at least twice to start with he was saying the only way you can get qualified is if your born into a family if priviledge then changed his mind to luck is more important to getting qualified than hard work, I think he is wrong in both cases and have given examples. What do you think he is right about?
99% I am right, I admit there are phenomenal poeple who are lucky enough to be blessed with a ridiculously high IQ that cancels out the hardship they faced.
Well that obviously doesn't apply to all situations. Someone with a certificate in hair dressing, hasn't got it because of a privledged background. Can you apply your example to gun certification? I don't know enough about the process personally.
That means nothing. Is the murder rate lower in the UK? Being shot is not the only thing that can happen to someone. Is this even because of gun control?
I don't think he believes it is. It's about big brother "protecting" the country by getting rid of guns. Which just created more crime in other areas. He doesn't even know what it is like in the US, cooped up on his island. And he disregarded my Daily Mail proof because "it is written by Muslim immigrants".
I dont blame him for disregarding a Daily Mail report because it is a sensationalist paper not famed for printing the truth, i'd be surprised if they employed a Muslim writer though because the one thing they are famous for is their very right wing and anti Muslim stance.
Yes, all guns should be banned even if you are certified. Being certified to use a gun doesn't mean that you aren't going to murder someone. People do not need to own a gun, not only because of the fact that they are a used to kill people, but also because of all of the accidents that can occur. Examples like children finding a gun and shooting it. Having a gun I really a bad idea.
By that logic, so is owning a pair of scissors. Guns are inanimate objects, they can be used for various purposes and I believe there are times when it is perfectly acceptable and not murder to kill someone (i.e. Self-Defense).
A child finding a gun is not an accident. It is an act of negligence because most law abiding gun owners keep their guns in a safe to prevent this from happening.
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.
