CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:58
Arguments:47
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (46)

Debate Creator

Logically(191) pic



What arguments are there in favor of citizens owning guns?

Aside from the most prominent argument I always hear, "It'S In ThE cOnStItUtIoN yOu COMMIE!!", what are some legitimate arguments for citizens owning guns? Simply stating, "Because it's the law, it's in the constitution" is pretty bullheaded, and also the same argument given in favor of slavery back when it was officially legal. The US is one of the most crime-ridden countries on Earth; for being one of the most developed, that's just pathetic (US is #35/115 on the crime index scale as of 2018, with lower numbers being worse. We're right between Iran and Colombia in terms of crime index and safety rating, only 3 placings from Mexico and 4 from Pakistan). Japan has the lowest crime index rating as well as the highest safety rating in the world, As well as probably the strictest gun laws on the planet; it is illegal to own a firearm, ammunition, or discharge a firearm. Singapore, the 3rd lowest crime indexed country, also has extremely strict gun control laws; unlawful possession of 2+ firearms could land you the death penalty. It seems to be the case that countries with looser gun control have higher levels of crime and lower levels of safety. Why do Americans, namely conservatives, want to cling so tightly to their guns when there isn't really evidence that they're doing any good being in the hands of everyday citizens? Shouldn't we be working on improving our police force to get rid of organized crime that has nearly taken over many cities across our country?
Add New Argument
4 points

-People living out in the country have no cops nearby to defend them, & need a way of defense

-Physically disabled and women have the right to equalize a situation against someone much stronger or bigger than they are.

-To prevent a rape.

-Because outside of gun homicides by gangs almost no one gets killed by a gun. And the gangs aren't disarming.

-Because libs can't even begin to tell us how to disarm 33,000 gangs with millions of members.

-Because lawbreakers will not care what the law says and still will have a gun. Disarming law abiders is nonsensical.

-Because if someone broke into your house and raped your mom,wife, & or your daughter right in front of you at gunpoint and you knew that you having a gun would have prevented it, you'd agree.

-Because illegals in sanctuary cities are let loose despite having a firearm. They don't get MORE rights than me.

-Because claiming the police and the system are systematically oppressing blacks, & then demanding blacks disarm is nonsensical.

Logically(191) Disputed
3 points

People living out in the country have no cops nearby to defend them, & need a way of defense; Physically disabled and women have the right to equalize a situation against someone much stronger or bigger than they are

Many studies have shown that criminals are very, very rarely shot down by civilians in the act of a crime. A study on gun related deaths found that in 2012, there were 258 justifiable homicides involving citizens using firearms, compared to 8,342 murders by guns. The study also found that victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective behavior with a firearm only 0.1 percent of the time. In addition to that, roughly 22,000 people die annually accidentally from a gun or to commit suicide. In a country with over 300 million firearms in circulation, it seems like civilians stop crimes with them very rarely.

To prevent a rape

Are you just assuming this, or do you have any sources for it?

Because outside of gun homicides by gangs almost no one gets killed by a gun

You obviously did no research on this subject, you're just mindlessly typing how you feel. More people die every year from suicide by guns and accidents involving guns. Do some research.

And the gangs aren't disarming

Maybe if we stopped pumping money into the firearms industry and instead, I don't know, into our police force to better equip and train them, something can be done about the gangs that run rampant. I don't see you or your uncle Billy gettin' yer militia t'gether to go stop dem der gangsters. What are you gonna do about the gangs if you don't want the police to be able to?

Because libs can't even begin to tell us how to disarm 33,000 gangs with millions of members

I just did. Better police force, make owning guns by civs illegal and start taking them out of circulation. The only reason these numbers aren't going down is because there are so many guns in circulation in America; making them illegal to civilians and drastically reducing the number of them will make an astronomical impact.

Because lawbreakers will not care what the law says and will still have a gun. Disarming law abiders is nonsensical.

This is one of the most ignorant and, frankly, stupid arguments against gun control. Following your logic, should we get rid of traffic laws? Speeders will speed no matter what the law says, so why make it illegal? Simply idiotic. Also, a study on domestic terrorism in the US showed that upon making ingredients to make homemade bombs better restricted and monitored, the number of attacks using bombs decreased drastically only to be replaced with, you guessed it, guns. Making guns illegal will give the police the ability to start reducing the overall number of guns in circulation, effectively making it harder for gangs to stay in steady supply of them until they're no longer armed to the point where our police can't even take care of them.

Because if someone broke into your house and raped your mom,wife, & or your daughter right in front of you at gunpoint and you knew that you having a gun would have prevented it, you'd agree.

This is a very situational argument that's meant to do nothing but use your severe lack of knowledge on this subject as an argument. It's pathetic.

Because illegals in sanctuary cities are let loose despite having a firearm. They don't get MORE rights than me.

Sources? Also, stay on topic.

Because claiming the police and the system are systematically oppressing blacks, & then demanding blacks disarm is nonsensical

This makes absolutely no sense and hurts just reading. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You're mindlessly ranting, repeating every republican headline you read and failed to do any sort of research on. Your ignorance is appalling and I strongly suggest you go do some research.

Sources:

1: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/guns-self-defense-study n7608350.html

2: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-defilippis-hughes-gun-myths-debunked-20160708-snap-story.html

3: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/06/firearms-have-killed-82-of-the-86-victims-of-post-911-domestic-terrorism/

WinstonC(1228) Disputed
1 point

"Many studies have shown that criminals are very, very rarely shot down by civilians in the act of a crime. A study on gun related deaths found that in 2012, there were 258 justifiable homicides involving citizens using firearms, compared to 8,342 murders by guns."

Your source doesn't work. Other sources vastly differ, with estimates of the total yearly incidents of defensive gun use (DGU) at over 2 million (Source 1, pg36, Source 2). Note that these studies are likely to over-estimate slightly due to telescoping (though Kleck's preliminary work suggested this effect was small, other researchers have suggested larger effects). However, even if we halved the numbers they are still vast when we compare to the 14-20k killed by guns yearly (removing suicides) according to CDC (Source 3).

Since you mentioned skepticism on the prevention of rape, source one estimates 200K of these annual DGUs are preventative of rape. Both sources also include criticism of the NCVS studies which are usually cited by those holding the anti-gun position (the NCVS studies are guaranteed to under-report DGUs).

Sources:

(1) http://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Armed Resistance to Crime- The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defe.pdf

(2) www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

(3) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Supporting Evidence: Source 1 - working version (americangunfacts.com)
1 point

To prevent a rape

Are you just assuming this, or do you have any sources for it?

I don't know about them, but I know about me.

"She recalls the day she shot her rapist"

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/world/cyntoia-brown-describes-the-moment-she-shot-her-rapist/video/c1c1c6835d7dead29d9f375e14123f7a?nk=065f457383f4c0b4a8c8bffa477dfd88-1521932884

1 point

Better police force

More liberal voodoo. A police force that does a "better job" will always be neutered by liberals claiming it is racist. Then people kill more with guns, then the police make an effort, libs scream racism, lawlessness prevails, libs squeal, cops throw their hand up in surrender, rinse, wash, and repeat.

make owning guns by civs illegal

Which means only nonviolent law abiding citizens get disarmed while violent non law abiding people hold onto their guns and tell you to Come and get em. This is pure pointless stupidity.

and start taking them out of circulation.

1)How? The police in the Florida school shooting were afraid to move in on a 19 year old boy with a gun. How do plan on disarming gangs that look like military units?

2)I can imagine the liberals now. The cops start disarming the Latino, Hispanic, and black neighborhoods and liberals and minorities start killing and targeting police. Then we can't get anyone to be a cop. Now who's going to take the guns? You? Go ahead. Make my day.

The only reason these numbers aren't going down is because there are so many guns in circulation in America; making them illegal to civilians and drastically reducing the number of them will make an astronomical impact.

This is completely utopian nonsense and complete conjecture and theory stated as "fact". You have no example to prove that creating some law in America, which is nothing like any other place on the planet, will just magically work. We can't even get sanctuary cities and sanctuary states to follow laws as we speak, and liberal areas literally warn foreign criminals that ICE is coming for them.

0 points

Many studies have shown that criminals are very, very rarely shot down by civilians in the act of a crime

1)Which ignores prevention by having a gun, of there being an incident in the first place. No one comes near my place because they know they won't walk away.

2)Tell that to a civilian who did defend themselves with a gun. That's why it is called an individual liberty. I have the right to defend myself even if no one else on planet Earth has ever defended themselves. Liberal manipulations of stats and false equivalencies don't magically cancel out my right to defend myself.

3)Calling the police systematic, racist oppressors, and then claiming them heroes and that they are the only ones who should be armed is the biggest load of bullshit a human mouth can utter or a human mind can fathom.

2 points

DEFINITIONS-

Definition of gun-

a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory

b : a portable firearm (such as a rifle or handgun)

c : a device that throws a projectile

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gun

POINT 1 ----------

People living out in the country have no cops nearby to defend them, & need a way of defense. There also is no guarantee of when the police will show up or if at all. They may be busy. Maybe they can't find you. Maybe dispatch loses track of your emergency.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/05/04/505335/

POINT 2 ----------

The physically disabled and women have the right to equalize a situation against someone much stronger or bigger than they are.

Headline-

"Mom who killed home invader: 'It was either him or me, and I wasn't going'"

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-county/police-woman-called-911-to-say-she-shot- killed-home-intruder/580186309

POINT 3 ----------

-Because those who want no one to have guns can't even begin to tell us how to disarm 33,000 gangs with millions of members.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang

POINT 4 ----------

Lawbreakers will not care what the law says and still will have a gun. Disarming law abiders is nonsensical.

POINT 5 ----------

If someone broke into your house and raped your mom, wife, and/or your daughter right in front of you at gunpoint and you knew that you having a gun would have prevented it, you'd look back forever and wonder if you could have stopped it had you been armed.

POINT 6 ----------

Illegals in sanctuary cities and states are let loose despite having a firearm. They don't get MORE rights than me.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/when-prosecutors-cheat-justice-protect-aliens

POINT 7 ----------

Claiming the police and the system are systematically oppressing blacks, & then demanding blacks disarm, is nonsensical.

This is an exercise in fundamental common sense. Liberals claim that the police systematically single out and oppress the black community. How can one then turn around and say that disarming the black community of its guns is "Social Justice"???

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205134232.htm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialjustice

POINT 8 ----------

Gun grabs empower corrupt governments rather than the people.

If there is almost no chance of a normal, everyday citizen killing anyone with a gun, disarming them can only have the motive of corruption and desire to play "Big Brother" to the citizenry. Why do you need our guns if we aren't mudering anyone with them?

POINT 9 ----------

There is little chance of being killed by a gun statistically, so the "gun homicides are out of control" narrative is a flat out lie.

There were 11,208 gun homicides in 2013. There are about 320,000,000 people in the United States. Let's do the math.

11,208÷320,000,000

=0.000035025

There is a 0.000035025% chance of getting killed by a gun in a homicide.

"Gun violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males."

Gangs will not disarm no matter what the law says, and if you take away gang violence, almost no one gets killed by a gun in a homicide.

1,358 people were killed in what is defined as a "mass shooting" in 2015.

1,358÷320,000,000

=0.0000042438

This means there is a 0.0000042438% chance of being killed in a mass shooting.

This is literally comparable to the odds of being struck by lightning, that is to say, almost no chance.

1÷700,000

=0.0000014285

According to the CDC, gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders on average in 2010 and 2011. That means that there were just 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 320,000,000 legal citizens.

2,200÷320,000,000

=0.000006875

This means there is a 0.000006875% chance that I am killed by a gun in a non gang related homicide.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GunviolenceintheUnitedStates

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0623 040623lightningfacts.html

https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/176690986

So what's the point?

1)Normal, law abiding citizens, are statistically, extremely responsible with guns. There's no non-corrupt reason to disarm innocent, law abiding citizenry.

2)Non law abiding people don't obey laws, including gun laws. So gun laws only disarm innocent, law abiding citizenry, making them soft targets for non-law abiding criminals.

3)Disarming law abiding citizens is pointless and wrong.

2 points

They make high-risk sex toys for the more adventurous masochists.

There appears to be a limit of how many words must be used to describe an answer to debate. This answer can be addressed in four words and Only one argument. The rest of this introduction was meant to fill the requirements of the debate forum.

A government owns guns................

If I am not to fear you...........why should you fear me?

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

A government owns guns

They don't only own guns. They own the highest grades of weaponry on the planet. If your argument is simply to "defend against the government if it becomes tyrannical", you're at a loss. Your 9mm, your semi-automatic rifle, even your ar-15 won't do anything against the current US government if it decided to militarize against its people. You need an actual argument, not a scare tactic that has virtually no chance of happening. School shootings nearly every month in the US? That's real. That's actually happening. You and your "good guys with guns" are doing nothing to stop it, either.

1 point

My argument is to defend myself against criminals that are in groups that libs and liberal controlled governments refuse to prosecute to "balance things out by race". Can we go after the criminals in sanctuary cities? Can we toss illegals out of the country? No? Then we pro gunners pick which laws we obey as well. Screw your law and call us Progressives.

Amarel(5563) Disputed
1 point

Actually, good guys with guns most often are the ones to stop it in the form of law enforcement. The Texas church shooting was a non-law enforcement good guy with a gun.

If the US government turned its military against ya own people, an armed populace would make a significant difference. This is because a large portion of law enforcement and military would side against that same government. It would be a civil war, and an armed populace makes a world of difference (see Viet Nam and Afghanistan).

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

These are just republican propaganda photos. There's no data, no source, it's not even a website. You expect a picture to explain your stance? Do you know that currently, owning a gun or ammunition in Japan is completely illegal? Did you know they also currently have the lowest crime index and highest safety index on the planet?

You can see actual data on that here https://www.numbeo.com/crime/rankingsbycountry.jsp and here https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Also, to counter that second "source" a little; the reason the cities with high regulations have high crime is because there are only regulations in the city, not the nation. If a city bans guns but there are over 310 million guns in circulation in the country, of course they're going to get by. If the entire nation bans them, however, and begins taking them out of circulation, gun-related crime will plummet.

1 point

And your sources are trustworthy why?.......................................

and also the same argument given in favor of slavery

Slavery isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, although it is implied. But, people aren't given the right to own slaves in the Constitution. Citizens are given the right to own guns in the Bill of Rights.

Logically(191) Disputed
2 points

Just because it's in the Constitution means it's ineligible for change? If enough evidence was put forth that citizens shouldn't own guns and that they really do more harm than good, you're not for amending the Constitution in the interest of protecting Americans?

1 point

Just because it's in the Constitution means it's ineligible for change?

No, that's not what I said. I said the ability to own slaves wasn't given to the people by the Constitution, in response to the statement that the argument for guns is the same as the argument for slavery. See, that's why we have the Bill of Rights and the other 17 amendments.

If enough evidence was put forth that citizens shouldn't own guns

There's not enough evidence. No matter how much you think there is, guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment and security guards.

and that they really do more harm than good, you're not for amending the Constitution in the interest of protecting Americans?

First, the Second Amendment technically isn't part of the Consitution, it's from the Bill of Rights. Secondly, check out the debate "There's almost no statistical chance that you ever get shot". How can you say getting rid of the 2nd Amendment helps U.S. citizens?

1 point

Mao Zedong: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

While in previous ages it was the sword this fundamental truth of power has not changed. All political power comes ultimately from the ability to utilize force. The balance of power between the state and the citizen has and presumably always will lean on the side of the state, however the degree of this imbalance is of great import. In western liberal democracies we have a better balance of power than in North Korea and this is part of why our people are treated so well relative to these nations. By making those who wield force somewhat accountable to the people, we thereby create a better balance of power between state and citizen. The ability of the citizenry to utilize force themselves grants further power to the citizenry, resulting in a more equitable balance of power. As aforementioned, this balance of power results in better conditions for the citizenry.

There is also the fact that in the U.S. there are more guns than people and this would make things incredibly difficult for any tyrannical government that may emerge from within or invade from without. The civilian resistance would inspire and enable a multitude of military turncoats; if no civilian resistance existed then military desertion wouldn't happen at anywhere near the same rate. This is both because resistance wouldn't seem as futile and there would be an existing force to join. As for a fear of a government becoming oppressive being unfounded, I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.

There is also the issue that to defend oneself against an armed or stronger attacker, rapist, thief, etc. one requires a weapon. The police do not typically arrive until after the crime has taken place. I don't believe that people's ability to defend themselves and their property should be taken away simply because other people are irresponsible.

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

I would point simply to the fact that over a long enough time frame an oppressive government is inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that advances in technology mean that progressively smaller numbers of people can control increasingly large populations.

This sort of counters your argument. Following your logic; it'll get easier for smaller numbers of people to control increasingly large populations, through advancing technology. Wouldn't a point be reached where guns are virtually insignificant against the level of technology this smaller population controls? One of my points is that simply having the "fighting spirit" to oppose your tyrannical government won't always bridge the gap between your firepower and theirs. A hundred semi-automatic rifles in the hands of citizens won't do much at all against a single heavy armored tank. Instead of festering this back-of-the-mind idea that the government is against us and we need to simply be ready for the day it happens, why not involve yourself in politics and make a difference by taking steps to minimize violence in our country? You can't possibly tell me the gun presence in America reduces violence in any way; and there are many arguments and studies in favor of the fact that gun presence encourages violent behavior and negative tendencies; in particular, studies show people with guns in their household are likelier to commit suicide, simply because a gun is a relatively effortless and painless way to do it.

WinstonC(1228) Disputed
1 point

"Wouldn't a point be reached where guns are virtually insignificant against the level of technology this smaller population controls?"

What level of technology are we talking here? What time-frame? First of all, I don't think we should dismiss solutions to problems (in this case oppressive government) that work presently based on the idea that eventually they might not work. Further, I personally would be against, for example, creating invincible robots without also making some means for human citizens to destroy them.

"One of my points is that simply having the "fighting spirit" to oppose your tyrannical government won't always bridge the gap between your firepower and theirs. A hundred semi-automatic rifles in the hands of citizens won't do much at all against a single heavy armored tank."

If the U.S. government were to become authoritarian to the extent that it was facing armed civilian resistance, it would cause mass military desertion to the resistance. Without an existing resistance, military desertion would both be less common and less effective. This is both because there would be an existing force to join and civilian resistance would serve to back up the professional military, much like how the more poorly equipped Roman auxilia supported the legions. As for the tank example, "IEDs" (improvised explosive devices) seem to work.

"Instead of festering this back-of-the-mind idea that the government is against us and we need to simply be ready for the day it happens, why not involve yourself in politics and make a difference by taking steps to minimize violence in our country?"

Is it not important to have a good balance of power between citizen and government in order to prevent abuses by the government against the citizenry? Further, one should acknowledge that government has the potential to do both good and evil, rather than believing that your government is incapable of evil, as your words would imply. As for involving oneself in politics, is that not what debating ideas such as this is? Is reducing violence more important than preventing an authoritarian state and if so why?

"You can't possibly tell me the gun presence in America reduces violence in any way; and there are many arguments and studies in favor of the fact that gun presence encourages violent behavior and negative tendencies; in particular, studies show people with guns in their household are likelier to commit suicide, simply because a gun is a relatively effortless and painless way to do it."

I never said that guns reduce violence, though they certainly are used by citizens defensively to protect themselves from crime, with estimates of defensive gun use at around 2Mil/Yr (Source 1,2)(-copy and paste source 2 into browser). Citation needed for your last claim, though I don't believe that my liberty should be taken away simply because people might use a gun to commit suicide. Note also that people can use cars (carbon monoxide poisoning) as a relatively quick and entirely painless method of suicide. Further, they kill the same amount of people yearly (Source 3). As such, it is necessary to believe that the right to protect oneself and one's property is less important than the ability to travel quickly in order to hold this perspective.

Sources:

Source 1: Supporting evidence link below

Source 2: www.johnlott.org/files/GeneralDisc97_02Surveys.zip

Source 3 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Supporting Evidence: Source 1 (americangunfacts.com)
1 point

Citizens don't have the favor of owning guns ? You are a Special Kind of Stupid !!!!

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

Should've stayed on topic and kept your feelings out of it. Disgusting trolls.

1 point

None, really, except for the all-too-common "The Second Amendment" argument. So what if the Second Amendment gives you the right to own a gun? The Bill of Rights is extremely flawed, especially considering the fact that women only got the vote 100 years ago.

1 point

So what if the Second Amendment gives you the right to own a gun?

What do you mean, "So what?" Are you saying the right to self-preservation is an inherently dumb one?

The Bill of Rights is extremely flawed

That's why it exists. The Bill of Rights was meant to fix any errors in the Constitution, which it did 10 times. I'll agree that things like the 18th Amendment were idiotic, but that's why the 21st Amendment exists. Plus, everything after the Tenth Amendment isn't part of the Bill of Rights.

considering the fact that women only got the vote 100 years ago.

So? Slavery was made illegal a little over 150 years ago, but that doesn't mean it makes the Bill of Rights or any of the other amendments terrible.

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

No, but it indicates that the almighty Constitution our forefathers enacted is becoming obsolete. You can't write a law hundreds of years ago and expect them to apply as they did then in the far future. Some laws, maybe. But not all.

1 point

-The US has higher levels of crime in general, not just gun crime. You’ll find that the low levels of crime among the Japanese are mirrored by low levels of crime by Japanese Americans. This example will hold true for other peaceful cultures as well, including those peaceful cultures with relatively high gun ownership, such as Switzerland. Swiss American are also peaceful, even if they own guns.

-That being said, the US is not, in fact, one of the most crime ridden countries on earth. Not by a long shot. The crime index is based on a survey of perception, which is quite a bit different from statistical data with real numbers. The murder rate for example puts us right about in the middle for rank and below average in general

-As for your correlation of gun ownership to crime; The US ranks at the top as far as rate of gun ownership, but we share the top ten with Switzerland, Finland, and Sweden. As a matter of fact, though Switzerland has a very low murder rate, a higher percentage of their murders are committed with a gun than in the US. The highest total murder by gun is in Brazil, who ranks 75th in gun ownership. The highest murder rate by gun is in Honduras, which ranks 88th in gun ownership. Your correlation is dubious. Culture is a greater factor. Furthermore, if you correlate gun ownership to crime in te US over time, you’ll find that crime has been falling as gun ownership has been rising.

-You want a reason why people should be allowed to own guns other than principles of Liberty and Law. Very well. My personal firearm protects me. It protects those around me. The chances of my gun murdering someone is unmeasurably small. It’s also fun. An individual gun is less likely to kill than an individual swimming pool, which is also fun. A firearm in the hands of a responsible owner is a very minimal risk. Since the vast vast majority of American gun owners are responsible, the question isn’t why should they get to own it, but why shouldn’t they. Why should a majority of people, lawful owners, be punished for the actions of a minority of criminals? They shouldn’t.

1 point

People need to be able to protect themselves in the event the government cannot be trusted. ;)

Logically(191) Disputed
1 point

This is a weak point I've already disputed numerous times, on this post and others related.

1 point

Oh..., so..., you trust Trump? I hear you ;)