#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.
|
Should guns be allowed on college campuses?
Yes they should.
Side Score: 63
|
 |
No they shouldn't.
Side Score: 41
|
|
College students should be allowed to carry gun on school campuses. They are old enough to know what a gun is and how to use one. If someone were to come in and shoot through the place, what can they do if they don't have something to defend themselves with? For their own safety and for the safety of everyone else in the college, guns should be allowed on college campuses. Side: Yes they should.
Owning a swimming pool is statistically a far greater risk to your house hold than a gun but without the benefit of potentially saving your life. How can anyone justify having a swimming pool? I suppose you think it's your right to own that kind of property? Side: Yes they should.
Apples and oranges. A gun is a deadly weapon designed with the express purpose of injuring or killing living things. A swimming pool is designed to swim in. Not comparable at all. The right to own a gun is an arbitrarily created principle, established in a time of tremendous political upheaval, ostensibly to protect the free state from foreign interference, most notably from the British Empire, and also from government tyranny. No such statute is now either necessary in the former context (there is no British Empire) nor effective in the latter (the US has an armed force funded with more cash than the next ten largest armed forces combined: a public militia stands no chance of victory over it). But more to the point, if the second amendment provides legal justification to own a gun on the basis of establishing and maintaining "a well regulated public militia" to protect the free state, then it is in defeat of the amendment's purpose to allow everyone to have a gun, because not everyone is mentally capable to act in accordance with the will of the populace which constitute the "free state". A well regulated public militia must, by definition, be regulated. In order to be " well regulated", the armed militia must fulfil its purpose without being a danger to the free state itself. And since psychos, felons, the mentally ill, and children, owning guns are clear dangers to the citizens of the free state (as evidenced by the plethora of school shootings and fatal accidents involving children) provision must be made to ensure that such citizens are unable to procure guns. Thus you maintain a well regulated public militia for the security of the free state, and fulfil the second amendment on its own terms. Side: No they shouldn't.
Apples and oranges Not in the context of his argument, that owning x increases the chances of death. A gun is a deadly weapon designed with the express purpose of injuring or killing living things. Lets not pretend there is never a good reason for a private citizen to injure or kill a living thing. The right to own a gun is an arbitrarily created principle Not at all. Natural Rights philosophy, on which western liberal societies are built, is not derived arbitrarily. The Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness carry with them, necessary supporting rights, such as the right to self-defense. In a world where guns exist, the right to own one follows from the right to defend oneself in a world where other people own them. It’s not arbitrary. the US has an armed force funded with more cash than the next ten largest armed forces combined: a public militia stands no chance of victory over it I see. So that’s how we stamped out the Viet Cong, squashed international terrorism, and of course made short work of ISIS. That’s sarcasm. Historically, armed people have done well against our military might. If there were ever another Civil War, members of the military would join the opposition (that’s how those things work). The United States is too massive for an armed populace to be ineffective. This well armed population would entrench and fight an effective guerilla war with officers and enlisted members of the military joining them. Conventional warfare methods against its own population would eliminate that very funding that makes the military so powerful. This precarious potential only exists because of the 2nd Amendment. if the second amendment provides legal justification to own a gun on the basis of establishing and maintaining "a well regulated public militia" to protect the free state, then it is in defeat of the amendment's purpose to allow everyone to have a gun, because not everyone is mentally capable to act in accordance with the will of the populace which constitute the "free state" “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” The word “public” is not in the 2nd Amendment. Nor does the 2nd necessitate giving guns to the mentally handicapped. Furthermore, there are several ways to interpret the 2nd Amendment. Since a well regulated militia is necessary, those who would fill it’s ranks (the people) must be armed, or since a well regulated militia is necessary, those who would oppose it (the people) must be armed. But strictly speaking, the 2nd Amendment says two things; that a well regulated militia is necessary, and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And since psychos, felons, the mentally ill, and children, owning guns are clear dangers to the citizens of the free state (as evidenced by the plethora of school shootings and fatal accidents involving children) provision must be made to ensure that such citizens are unable to procure guns It looks like you made a list of reasons guns should be allowed on campus. Side: Yes they should.
Only a yank could possibly think that Thomas Jefferson is responsible for the genesis of Western liberal values. The French were famous for liberté, égalité et fraternité fifty years before America even abolished slavery. The Netherlands were republicans thirty years before the first documented settlement in America, long before Thomas Jefferson's father was even around and old enough to be able to produce the sperm that would eventually become the man himself. The Athenians were writing treatises on the principles of inalienable rights, forming systems of vote and working in Democracies a thousand years previous to any of this. Democracy, liberty, equal rights, the right to life -- "Western liberal society" -- are European ideals. Guns and the solutions to violence in a nation are just one more aspect in which cultured and civilised countries have adopted a "radical" view that you Americans have yet to see the value of. Give it a century or two and maybe you might be smart enough to realize that getting rid of guns en masse is the first step to getting rid of gun crimes en masse. Hard to grasp, I know. Side: No they shouldn't.
Not much for reading comprehension are you. I never mentioned Jefferson you fucking retard. I referred to natural rights philosophy. Other than focusing on one thing I posted, getting it wrong, and then utilizing massive Ad Hominem against a whole country. Try making a valid point. As long winded as you are, you are likely to stumble across a correct argument someday. But I am still waiting. Side: Yes they should.
Yeah, he was a proponent of Natural Rights theory, on which our western liberal society is built. He wrote that in the Declaration of Independence, but he didn't invent the idea. He got it from John Locke. I also didn't claim it was the sum total of Natural Rights philosophy, but it is a relevant portion. How much time do you spend writing long diatribes against non-existent positions of your own invention? Never mind, I don't care. If you're going to call someone a fucking retard, you should make sure the reason you say it is right. Though being right isn't your habit. Now I hope you are tired of losing this way to me, you're starting to bore. Side: Yes they should.
That makes it worse. A swimming pool, which isn't even meant to kill people, is statistically more dangerous in the home than the most lethal of weapons. If owning a firearm is automatically dangerous and should be beamed on those grounds, should pools not be banned? Side: Yes they should.
The swimming pool argument in a slightly different guise a favourite of the NRA and not very convincing....... From an article by FJC Schildbach, LMHC claims .....all stats from CDC ....
Now, if you want to say that more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than die from being shot, that is actually true. Of course, this is something like saying more U.S. children, age 14 and under, die from drowning than from heroin overdoses. More nine-year-olds go swimming than are shooting up or packing heat. However, once you add in the next age-based demographic group, which is 15- to 24-year-olds, the total number of deaths by drowning is easily eclipsed by the total number of deaths by firearm. For a quick comparison of the 2013 CDC statistics: Age 14 and under, deaths by drowning: 625 Age 14 and under, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 408 Age 15 to 24, deaths by drowning: 501 Age 15 to 24, deaths by firearm (intentional and otherwise): 6085 So, by including those people over the age of 14 in the statistics, the numbers skew undeniably toward guns being much more dangerous than swimming pools. Including all age groups in the U.S., there is a total of 3,391 drowning deaths to a total of 33,169 deaths by firearm. Also, keep in mind that drowning does not only include swimming pools. It includes all drowning that is non-boating-related. Anybody who drowns in a bathtub, a lake, a river, an ocean, or any other body of water is included in the statistics. So, really, swimming pools would appreciate it if you would quit blaming them for all of the drowning deaths. But, even if the statistics weren’t so blatantly obvious in spelling out the relative danger of guns versus drowning, the assertion of the relative danger of swimming pools versus guns is, on its face, rather stupid. For instance, I could not pick up a swimming pool and walk into a school, a movie theater, or a church, and start drowning people with it. Similarly, when a woman asks her estranged husband for a divorce, there’s something of a greater threat that he will get a gun, shoot her, all their children, and himself, than there is that he is going to drug any of them and pitch them into the backyard swimming pool. And, in case you hadn’t thought about it, a big chunk of those homicide-by-firearm statistics for the 14-and-under crowd involve fathers murdering their families. We can even use the pro-gun folks’ favorite (albeit highly unlikely) scenario of a home invasion to show the ridiculousness of weighing the threat level of swimming pools versus guns. Your front door is kicked in, and three men storm in—shoot them (with the gun you keep at your side at all times in your home, just in case anybody kicks in your front door), or try to lure them into the swimming pool? Side: No they shouldn't.
There’s a reason that I said “Owning a swimming pool is statistically a far greater risk to your house hold than a gun”. Many people own guns and not that many own pools. What you are forgetting about your raw statistics is the relatively few number of swimming pools there are. If you only count the number of deaths, A-bombs appear statistically less devastating in warfare than conventional bombs since they have killed way less people. So long as you forget they were only used twice. I am drawing my information from Dr. Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago. According to him, a given swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than a given gun. The methodology for this is straight forward. He said “So what we did is we looked at the number of child deaths that were due to swimming pools, the number of child deaths that were due to guns, and then we put it in terms of how often will a given swimming pool kill a child versus how often will a particular gun kill a child.” So yeah, guns kill a lot more kids than swimming pools. There aren’t near as many swimming pools. Any given swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a kid in the home than a gun is. I should mention that Levitt is a Liberal. One of his more famous analysis was explaining the precipitous drop in crime rate over recent decades to the increase in abortion rates from the time of it becoming legal. This drop in crime comes at the same time as a significant increase in gun purchases. I won’t claim that the correlation between increased gun ownership and decreased crime is causal, but it does show that guns are not the problem. The vast majority of gun deaths come from suicide by a margin of almost 2 to 1. While suicide is tragic, it isn’t homicide. Much of the rest of your argument is based on what-if scenarios. This is the wrong way to approach it. What if someone gets some guns and shoots up a school? It happens but it is very rare. Same with fathers shooting his family. What if a Muslim blows some innocent people up? It happens less rarely than mass shootings. We have already banned the explosives they use. Would you maybe suggest a Muslim ban? I’ll finish with two questions you are sure to avoid: Why has crime decreased while gun ownership has increased in the US? Why is there far less violent crime now, after guns were invented, than before? Side: Yes they should.
I'm familiar with levitt and freakonimics and I've heard most the arguments for and against regards guns ; you and I are from totally different cultures and I doubt would ever agree on the issue regards gun ownership but I'm very interested in whole topic and the totally different viewpoints . I've read most of Levitts freakonomics pieces and find them credible and thought provoking , the bottom line remains for me that guns kill an awful of people across the US yearly and recently I read that over 1 million deaths have occurred in the US from guns since the 1960's that's quiet staggering . I don't know why you would assume I would not attempt to answer your two questions
This is from Time magazine ...... The 30 largest U.S. cities saw a double-digit increase in their murder rate in 2016, according to a new year-end report, even as crime nationwide remains near all-time lows. A new study released Tuesday by New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice projects that the 2016 murder rate for the largest U.S. cities is up 14% from 2015 while the violent crime rate rose by 3.3%. The overall crime rate, however, increased by just 0.3%, thanks in large part to historically low levels of property crime, according to the study's authors. Read more: Murders Are Up in Many U.S. Cities Again This Year The trend lines in the report run counter to some of the most dire warnings aired during the presidential election. As a candidate, Donald Trump spoke out against what he characterized as record levels of crime in urban areas. While the murder rate has increased, overall crime across the U.S. is near all-time lows. The report’s authors note that “concerns about a national crime wave are still premature, but these trends suggest a need to understand how and why murder is increasing in some cities.” Two cities are largely driving the spike in violent crime: Chicago and Charlotte. Violent crime in Chicago is up 17.7% increase this year, and the city accounts for almost 44% of the total increase in murders, according to the report. Charlotte has experienced a number of drug-related murders as well as homicides related to domestic violence and is projected to see a 13.4% increase in violent crime this year. Read more: Chicago is Responsible for Almost Half of the Increase in U.S. Homicides Of the 30 cities studied, just eight showed an increase in their crime rates from 2015. But the study found that 13 cities, including Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia and San Antonio, had increases in their violent crime rates while 21 were projected to see jumps in their murder rates. So if gun ownership leads to decreased crime rates why has the murder rate doubled ? Second question do you mean less violent crime in the US or worldwide ? Two questions for you ..... Would the introduction of guns for the majority of citizens in Europe improve our societies ? Why are guns necessary in American society ? Side: No they shouldn't.
Crime rates of all kinds will eb and flow. Your own sources indicate that overall crime is at long run lows while urban murders have seen short run increases. This is likely due to what is known as the Ferguson Effect. Police who fear loosing their jobs for doing it right, following a string of cases targeting police officers, have decreased their pro-active policing tactics in inner cities. The Ferguson Effect would be a more likely explanation since gun ownership in rural areas, where murder is lower, is extremely high, as is general gun ownership overall. I don't know why you would assume I would not attempt to answer your two questions Well, you haven’t really answered my question yet, but rather, misunderstood it. You asked “So if gun ownership leads to decreased crime rates why has the murder rate doubled ?”. First, your own source doesn’t say the murder rate doubled, it said it is up 14% with Chicago accounting for 44% of the increase. I didn’t say that gun ownership leads to decreased crime, I said that crime has decreased while gun ownership has increased. Correlation does not equal causation. However, it can disprove causation. Since, higher rates of legal gun ownership have correlated with lower rates of crime, you cannot conclude that legal gun ownership leads to higher crime. It’s important to note the areas where murder rates have increased. In Chicago, as in most cities, it is more difficult to legally have a firearm than it is elsewhere, such as in rural areas, where murder rates remain low. I would also like to refer you to the excessive increase in heroin overdose. I bring it up only because heroin is 100% illegal in the entire US, and yet people still have it. Second question do you mean less violent crime in the US or worldwide ? I mean the world. We live in the most peaceful time, per capita, in human history. Would the introduction of guns for the majority of citizens in Europe improve our societies ? Why are guns necessary in American society ? I cannot speak for European society. They seem to do fine with a lot of things that are not applicable to the US. For example, European countries spend little on military expenses. This works fine so long as the US spends a lot and continues to be an ally. So, would guns improve things? I don’t know, ask Switzerland, they seem to be ok. Why are guns necessary? For the same reason that Nukes are necessary. Because they exist. If no one had nukes, then anyone having them would be unnecessary. Pandora’s Box is open. Bad people have guns, so good people need guns. Not entirely unrelated is the functional aspect of firearms. The US is vast and mostly rural. There are still sizeable portion of the population that relies on guns for food and to protect their livestock from predators. Just to reiterate my two questions which remain: Why has crime decreased while gun ownership has increased in the US? Why is there far less violent crime now, after guns were invented, than before? Side: Yes they should.
Ok , that's good enough and you've addressed my questions fairly ; regarding your two questions : I remember reading a piece once again by Levitt which talked about higher abortion rates being a cause for lower crime rates , I have the article somewhere if I find it I will post it up . Question 2 I don't honestly know and various theories have been put forward I like Steven Pinkers thoughts on the subject .....violence is irrational ... : PINKER: There are a lot of individual whys because the decline of war, decline of homicide, decline of capital punishment, and so on take place over different time scales. If there's a common denominator - in the long run, violence really is irrational. I might get an advantage if I harm someone else for my benefit, but on the other hand, he feels the same way. And if we both are constantly trying to kill each other, we're both worse off. And certainly the police and government have had a huge role in reducing violence. In the international arena, of course, we don't have a global police force. And there it is partly dependent on institutions of cooperation that make it more profitable to trade with other countries than to invade them. You don't kill your customers. The rise of democracy has probably made a difference. Democracies are less likely to wage war against each other. And there's also been a change in norms, just what decent countries do or don't do. Side: Yes they should.
Whether or not it should be, that is not currently the law. An open carry license does not legally permit a person to bring a firearm into any public space. There are consistent and regular exceptions for certain public held or operated properties, such as prisons, educational buildings, hospitals, etc. (e.g. even in TX). Also, not all colleges are public colleges. Side: No they shouldn't.
I think an important distinction here is whether it's a state school or a private school. State schools are funded by taxpayers, which means their property is tax funded, which means if they can legally carry guns in almost every other state property or in the public in general then they should get to do so at school. Granted, even states with permissive gun laws may still restrict them from places like court rooms, so whether or not allowed may vary. Private schools, on the other hand, are private property, even though they may have tens of thousands of students and be open to the general public. On private property they can pretty much do whatever they want. And you can't say that violates your gun rights because it's no different from you at your home saying someone with a gun better get off your front porch or you'll call the police for trespassing. Overall I voted on this side because the quantity of state schools and the size of their populations makes the first paragraph more commonly true than the second one. Side: Yes they should.
1
point
1
point
Providing guns with non lethal rounds is more advisable, I feel. Side: Yes they should.
I think sidearms and light automatic weapons should be permitted on campus but not heavy machine guns nor R.P.Gs. Revolvers and pistols could be used for target shooting at break times, providing lecturers were not used as targets, although there is an argument that they would be ideal for 'moving target' practice. The one statutory proviso which would have to be applied is that all such lethal weaponry should be surrendered, properly logged and securely stored during lecture classes. Side: Yes they should.
Cops are people. Trusted and trained, but they are just people. So why should other people, who are trusted and trained, not be allowed to carry a gun on a campus? Even if trusted and trained people aren't there with a gun, the guy who wants to do damage will be. Side: Yes they should.
A. Police officers have an entirely different and more dangerous job role than college campus security guards, how can you even compare the two? B.Yes they are people too, people that we give a higher authority to than college security. C. You seem pretty keen to arm everyone, which in turn will just increase the rate of shootings, but you don't seem to bright maybe you'll just end up shooting yourself lol Side: No they shouldn't.
A. I wasn't referring to campus security, but anyone who can be considered trusted and trained. Lots of college students are well trained military vets with squeaky clean records. They don't have the job of police, but they can be considered trusted and trained. B. What is that authority based on? Perhaps the trust we have in them; perhaps their training? C. Ad Hominem attacks expose weakness in the position of it's employer rather than in the position of it's target. If you had known that I don't expect you would have done it. Side: Yes they should.
So now your justification comparison is between college students and police officers? Cray. You have no problem allowing police officers to carry on campus because they are trusted and trained. Since they are not the only kind of person who can be considered trusted and trained, it is reasonable to conclude they are not the only kind of person you should feel comfortable allowing to carry a gun on campus. You know that I am simply making a case for this side of the debate right? Do you also know that you are not making a counter-argument? That actually means you are loosing. Simply saying that this side of the argument is cray and stupid, again, only shows a lack in your own ability to articulate a position to counter my own. Side: Yes they should.
But police ARE the only people considered 'trusted and trained' to carry on campus. Your argument fails itself... I have made counter arguments and they have squashed your points each time. You do realise your entire second paragraph is one giant ironic, hypocritical contradiction, right? lol Side: No they shouldn't.
But police ARE the only people considered 'trusted and trained' Considered by whom? Most military personell are better trained for firearms handling and have had security clearance. While a sizeable portion of the population doesn't really trust the police. Are you ok with an off duty police officer, who is also a student, carrying his gun on campus? Side: Yes they should.
It really aggravates me when clearly ignorant, narrow minded people say things like, 'a sizeable portion of the population doesn't really trust the police' What do you mean? People don't trust the law's? People don't trust the uniform? People don't trust the handcuffs? Or do you simply mean people don't trust people, and seeing as the police force is made up of PEOPLE, this would be reasonable conclusion not out of the ordinary...You could say the same about a car salesman, What about a real estate agent? etc. etc. Police just have a different job... What a stupid point to make... Side: No they shouldn't.
I am satisfied with that. Why are you satisfied but not happy? If off duty cops, who look just like anybody, can carry on campus, what reason is there to ban others who are as well trained and as trustworthy? They will look just like the off duty cop. What's the difference? Side: Yes they should.
You haven't pointed it out, you simply said it. The fact is that all crime, including violent gun crime is at historic lows dispite gun ownership being at historic highs. What you "pointed out" is your opinion that does not derive from facts. When shootings do occur, they are rarely by legal gun owners. So again, if a trustworthy, trained, off duty officer is ok to carry on campus, why not a trustworthy, trained student of a different occupation? Side: Yes they should.
"What you "pointed out" is your opinion that does not derive from facts." Owning or possessing, instantly increases your chances of being shot, fact. You then returned with your 'swimming pool' analogy, which is a clear false equivalency. So you're wrong and I feel like we are just back at square one... "When shootings do occur, they are rarely by legal gun owners. So again, if a trustworthy, trained, off duty officer is ok to carry on campus, why not a trustworthy, trained student of a different occupation?" I think you're missing the point about a police officers role and authority in society vs. a school students, and again creating a false equivalency. You want college kids having gun battles with what they might deem a potential threat? You don't see the pandora's box you are opening up, shootings will sky rocket! This isn't just my opinion this is a statistical fact! Side: No they shouldn't.
Owning or possessing, instantly increases your chances of being shot, fact. This absolutely is not a fact. Your primary problem is that you state your opinion and claim facts or statistics that do not exist. An unarmed person in the ghetto of Chicago stands a substantially greater risk of being shot than does the Montana rancher who owns an arsenal. You know why? Because owning and carrying a gun does not, in and of itself, increase your chances of being shot. If owning and carrying a gun increased your chances of being shot, then the historically high level of legal gun ownership would be accompanied by historically high incidents of gun crimes. Instead, we are at historically low levels of all crimes including gun crimes. These are facts. You don't see the pandora's box you are opening up, shootings will sky rocket! This isn't just my opinion this is a statistical fact! Your statistical facts are historically false. More people legally carry now than in the 90's. Gun crimes are down. Side: Yes they should.
See this is the problem, I am offering a very commonly known and agreed upon factual statistic, That gun ownership increases your chances of being shot, You then say that this is not a fact, it is false, and yet you don't provide any proof of this yourself. You really enjoy contracting yourself and being hypocritical... Side: No they shouldn't.
Here's the problem. You repeatedly state that your opinion is commonly known statistical fact while repeatedly failing to provide any evidence in support of your opinion. I would say that you are intellectually dishonest, but it's best not to attribute to malice that which is explained by stupidity. If you claim a fact, the onus of proof is on you. Now here is some evidence for my position. It is commonly known that violent crime is way down (I can provide a source if you actually think it's up). At the same time, concealed carry permits are up from 2.7 million in 1999 to over 14.5 million in 2016. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has exploded, almost doubling from 2008 to 2015. This directly counters your commonly held false opinion. Side: Yes they should.
You even confirmed my statistic factual with your previous rebuttal, when you brought up swimming pools. How can you say owning a swimming pool increases your chances of drowning, but owning a gun not does increase your chances of being shot. You know, I thought when I joined this site people might be vaguely intelligent and enjoy a reasonable debate, rather than demanding sources and evidence for every little fucking point I make, or just points they aren't able to refute. Side: No they shouldn't.
Why am I the only one of us citing statistics when claiming statistical points? Pools increase the risk of death to a child in the household more than guns increase the risk of death to a child in the household. The fact that concealed carry permits have skyrocketed while violent crime has decreased directly contradicts your point. The only way for you to contradict my evidence, is to actually show the data that indicate owning a gun gets you shot. Since we both know you can’t do that, you must rely on claiming your opinion is commonly held statistical fact. It isn’t Side: Yes they should.
So i would assume you to be a logical person, maybe I'm wrong. You say that owning a swimming pool increases the chances of drowning, but owning a gun does not, whatsoever, increase your chances of being shot? If this is what you are saying and unless I provide your ignorant ass sources to refute this, I am satisfied and we can end this now, you are just an idiot. If however you are able to comprehend the logic behind your own argument (swimming pools), then you could also say that owning a bowling ball increases your chances of dropping one on your foot, however small the statistics may be, it does increase. Continuing to follow this logic it would be reasonable to say owning a gun increases your chances of being shot. So even following your own logic, I'm still right... This is the basics of statistics...Be enlightened peasant. lol Side: No they shouldn't.
If you scroll up to the post you just responded to, you will see what I have been saying, in no uncertain terms. If you would like to call names and give up, I'm fine with that. Insults have far less bite when it is clear you don't know what you are talking about. As for basic statistics, I'm the only one who provided any. Side: Yes they should.
If I bought a shotgun, brought it home, and locked it in a gun case, I am neither more nor less likely to be gunned down in the street as a matter derived directly from my ownership of that gun. Even if you could provide a source to support your position (so far you cannot), you would have to indicate causation, not mere correlation. As it is though, the correlation favors my position (as my evidence provided elsewhere in this argument indicates), thus it disproves the causation you assert. You may now claim victory if you like. You can walk away feeling proud of your argumentative acumen. But your victory will have been won without providing any evidence or countering the evidence provided by your opponent. Congratulations winner. Side: Yes they should.
I really want to get past this it has become beyond ridiculous, when in fact it's so simple. Gun ownership increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting. You have already conceded this fact, yet now you seem to be back peddling, you're not helping yourself... Given this factor, why would your only solution in this circumstance be to increase the chances of people on college campuses to be shot or involved in a shooting? A really don't think you have a logical response to this, I think you know this too, so you keep going round in circles, well have fun! Otherwise I appreciate you being gracious in defeat, as you said so yourself I am the Victor, I'll take that, so thank you because there really is nothing worse than a bad loser :) Side: No they shouldn't.
Interesting exchange and here is a piece from The Scientist magazine with a study on this issue 😊 Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood. Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings. Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.” Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says. Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Side: Yes they should.
You're incorrect , you also claimed before that there were more deaths from swimming pool accidents than guns , so would owning a swimming pool increase your chance of drowning over those who don't own swimming pools , and if not why not ? This is the logic you're using and using your logic people who don't own guns are at the very same risk as gun owners of dying from guns . The study i posted to your opponent is based on case studies rather than your flawed assumptions and demonstrates how flawed your position is . Gun crime may be down but that's merely a red herring that does not evade the simple truth that gun owners increases their chance of getting shot over those who are unarmed Interesting exchange and here is a piece from The Scientist magazine with a study on this issue 😊 Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood. Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings. Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.” Daniel Webster, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore, Maryland, thinks it is near-sighted to consider only the safety of gun owners and not their communities. “It affects others a heck of a lot more,” he says. Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099 Side: No they shouldn't.
you also claimed before that there were more deaths from swimming pool accidents than guns, so would owning a swimming pool increase your chance of drowning over those who don't own swimming pools , and if not why not ? You and I both know that I claimed pools are more dangerous in the household, specifically with regards to children, and that I drew this directly from a reasonable source with a reasonable position. Guns kill more people, but when you consider the fewer number of pools, more pools per capita are lethal. The only situation in which this logic applies to firearms would be accidental self-inflicted gunshot. This is because you literally cannot accidentally shoot yourself without a gun present. Not only are these the rarest of gun injuries, but they commonly done by people who are using someone else’s gun, rather than actual gun owners. https://www.newscientist.com/article/ Thank you for actually seeking a source to back up your claim. Simply owning a gun does not, in fact, increase your risk of being shot, and I’ll explain why, as well as what is wrong with your source. Charles Branas‘s team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time What they are studying is the likelihood that shooting victims were carrying guns, not the likelihood of getting shot due to carrying. This fallacious error is either intellectual dishonesty on the part of the reporter, or scientific ignorance. The study does not account for all the people carrying guns that do not get shot, thus it does not measure what it claims. The study was done in Philadelphia, a dense urban population that had a higher murder rate than Chicago at the time of the study according to FBI crime stats. Most people killed by gun violence in cities are drug dealers and gang bangers. Drug dealers and gang bangers often carry guns (illegally). This study confirms that, but little more. If you are a drug dealer or a gang banger, you are more likely to be killed, you are also more likely to illegally carry a gun. You cannot reasonably derive from this study that a Kansas farmer who buys a varmint rifle is now more likely to be shot; he isn’t. You cannot even reasonably derive that a regular law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon is more likely to be shot, as the study does not account for these people. It only accounts for victims, and urban victims of gun crimes are most often criminals. Side: Yes they should.
Regards swimming pools what you said was " Owning a swimming pool is statistically a far greater risk to your house hold than a gun but without the benefit of potentially saving your life " I see no mention of children in your piece . Regards swimming pool deaths they are accidental , so for balance they should be compared besides accidental gun deaths where swimming pool deaths no doubt are higher , if one takes gun deaths by accident or otherwise the difference is is huge and the toll for guns a lot higher . Your position is that simply owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot so people who do not own guns are at the very same risk of being shot as people who do own guns ? Finally the piece from Branas and his team seems to be fairly well reasoned but you dispute it which is fine I would love to see a study which illustrates the opposing view . Side: No they shouldn't.
I see no mention of children in your piece Not in that quote. But you and I discussed the topic at length and my position was made clear. Your position is that simply owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot so people who do not own guns are at the very same risk of being shot as people who do own guns ? My position, that owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot implies that other factors account for people being shot while carrying a gun, such as their criminal occupation. This is my position because simply buying a gun does not mean someone else will shoot you. The Kansas rancher with a varmint gun is at no greater risk of being shot by someone than his gun-less neighbors. Not only is there no study to support an increased risk for this rancher, but there is no logical connection between him owning a rifle, and someone shooting him. If this rancher cannot be said to be at greater risk, then the owning of a gun is not the causal factor. Finally the piece from Branas and his team seems to be fairly well reasoned but you dispute No I don't. I didn't see a piece from Branas, but rather a report about it. I am sure Branas's study does a good job of illustrating that Philadelphia shooting victims carry a gun. By measuring victims of shootings, you cannot get a picture of non-victims who carry. Which I imagine is why the study admits it's own deficiency. Consider that black people are the vast majority murder victims. That does not mean that a black guy living in the the country is more likely to be murdered by virtue of being black. Being black isn't what gets black people murdered. Carrying a gun isn't what gets gang bangers shot. Side: Yes they should.
'My position, that owning a gun does not increase your risk of being shot' The truth is that this statement is factually incorrect, you have conceded this point yourself, what do you plan to accomplish repeating this? You are one step away from saying 'but the bible said so'.... Side: No they shouldn't.
lol Ok, we'll play again...:) Do you deny that owning a gun increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting? Well? Nice ad hominems, i see you really enjoy disregarding your own logic and false accusations... Definitely classy and the strategies of a 'victor' lol.... Side: No they shouldn't.
When someone calls the cops, they are of course, calling people, which was my point earlier. A lot of people do not trust the people who take on the job of police officer. Hence my statement. The point I'm making, and you aren't refuting, is that cops are trained, but many others are better trained. Cops are trusted by some, like you, but not all. Your statement that cops are the ONLY people who are trusted and trained was nothing more than a personal feeling. Cops may often be the only ones allowed to carry a gun on campus, but many people are trust worthy and many people are trained. What reason do you offer for barring people from carrying on campus, if they are well trained and proven trustworthy? If the law permits it, will you be satisfied though unhappy? Side: Yes they should.
"A lot of people do not trust the people who take on the job of police officer. Hence my statement." Again, wrong, are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer? Every individual's character instantly becomes untrustworthy with authority? No, maybe some but authority can be abused by anyone. People don't trust people, so if you give a person a certain amount of authority above others, it is reasonable that extra trust issues would come about, you just sound like a sheep lost in the heard... "What reason do you offer for barring people from carrying on campus, if they are well trained and proven trustworthy?" The proven statistical increase they will have being shot or involved in a shooting. Your not preventing shootings, you are escalating them, this is a statistical fact! Side: No they shouldn't.
are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer? I'm not assuming that, but other people do. They think police are corrupt. Shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing cops to carry on campus? The fact that gun ownership is up while violent crime is down disproves your assertion that guns necessarily increase shootings. The fact is that not all gun owners are created equal. Where gun violence does occur, it is almost always between criminals who are not allowed to carry already. Regular citizens have been going through legal means to carry a gun while their chances of being shot have been decreasing with better crime control. Side: Yes they should.
'are you assuming their is a certain untrustworthy personality trait fundamental to be being a police officer?' 'I'm not assuming that, but other people do. They think police are corrupt. Shouldn't we consider their opinion before allowing cops to carry on campus?' Omg really? You're actually saying because SOME people ASSUME all police to be corrupt, after everything I just explained about people not trusting people and the police force is just full of people, then the fact that some people are just paranoid morons unable to think logically beyond their own primal instincts.... This somehow brings some debate as to should guns be allowed on college campuses? Where are you!?lol I think you're losing it :/ Side: No they shouldn't.
You don't know a rhetorical question when you see one. Cops are people that are trained and trusted. Not everyone trusts them, but that doesn't mean they are not trustworthy. Similarly, many non-police officers (who are people just like cops) are trained and trustworthy. Just because YOU don't trust them doesn't mean they are any less qualified to carry on campus than is an officer, who is also not trusted by everyone. Side: Yes they should.
The law decides that they are not qualified, don't get upset at me Depending on the state, the law actually allows for guns on campus. You have made it clear that you are not ok with this. You don't even like that off duty cops can carry. Some states have no legal prohibition and they don't have rampant shootouts. I have personally carried on campus without fear of legal reprisal. I already get my way. The issue is that you don't think I should. Don't get upset at me though. Side: Yes they should.
4
points
Even as I shoot down yet another of your arguments, you fall back on one previously destroyed. The statistics on the correlation of carrying a gun to getting shot (or lack thereof) has much more to do with other people than with the person carrying. This is why, as I supported with actual statistics, personal concealed carry has skyrocketed while shootings have declined. The evidence is more in my favor when limited to legal gun possession, rather than criminal gun possession. But don't mind the statistics, just keep talking about them incorrectly. It has worked really well so far. Side: Yes they should.
All you have written is a bunch of opinionated conclusions, you haven't provided any links or evidence to back up the specific claims you are making. In the meantime it still increases your chances of being shot owning a gun.... See I can play your stupid little game too :) Side: No they shouldn't.
I'm the only one of us who provided any evidence whatsoever. I posted it earlier. I'll post it again for you, but I'm only doing your work for you this one time. I'm afraid I can't read it for you, so you still may end up unaware of it, but here it is, copied and pasted from my earlier response to you: Now here is some evidence for my position. It is commonly known that violent crime is way down (I can provide a source if you actually think it's up). At the same time, concealed carry permits are up from 2.7 million in 1999 to over 14.5 million in 2016. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has exploded, almost doubling from 2008 to 2015. This directly counters your commonly held false opinion. If you are concerned that crime isn't down, I will refer you to the FBI crime stats. That's what most sources will draw from anyway. Side: Yes they should.
What I still don't understand is after you having conceded the fact that gun ownership increases your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting, the only solution you can come up with in this situation is more guns, Wouldn't even you consider that narrow minded? Side: No they shouldn't.
after you having conceded the fact that gun ownership increases your chances of being shot I have done no such thing. Ownership alone does nothing. What I have done is provide evidence for a statistical correlation that contradicts your assertion of causation, while you have provided nothing. Resorting to dishonesty of the sort you are engaging in here, is pretty stupid given anyone can scroll up and see that you are lying. Side: Yes they should.
Really? So we are back to square one? lol Your position is that owning a gun DOES NOT in any way increase your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting, but owning a swimming pool DOES increase your chances of drowning? And you really fail to see the same logic falls behind both arguments? Yep, you are cray :) Side: No they shouldn't.
|
3
points
Okay "GENIUS". If you're going to shoot a college campus and no one has a gun you're just going to kill everybody. However if three students have a gun pointed right back at you then they prevent you from shooting everyone in the building. Stupid liberals think that preventing people from having guns will stop murders and crime but if someone wants to kill people then they will find a way. Letting citizens carry firearms for their defense will help them have the ability to defend themselves. Side: Yes they should.
So your justification for increasing the risk of school kids being shot, by giving them their own firearms to carry at school, is based on the potential of a school shooting? Do you even understand statistics? Do you have any idea how much the chances of those kids potentially shooting each other outweighs the chances of them potentially protecting each other in a school shooting? How old are you lol Side: No they shouldn't.
Reference? Moreover, correlation does not demonstrate causation. Even if it is the case that owning a firearm correlates with a higher probability of being involved in a shooting, that does not necessarily mean that it is because one owns the firearm. One alternative explanation of that data, for instance, would be that those who are more likely to own a firearm are more likely to be involved in altercations either because of their circumstances or because of their emotional temperament. Further, even if there were a causative link between owning a gun and being involved in shootings that would not necessarily mean one cannot justify owning a gun themselves. The negligence or misbehavior of others does not immediately preclude rights from others. Side: Yes they should.
An unsubstantiated claim does not make the claim incorrect. I never claimed otherwise. Not to sure what you are trying to get at? Try reading comprehension. My first post was pretty explicit. Do you have evidence that demonstrates owning a gun does not increase your chances of being shot or involved in a shooting? No, but I also never made that claim. I'm waiting... lmfao Yeah, on yourself... Side: Yes they should.
|
