gun control debate - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

gun control debate
in Global

By joecavalryjoecavalry 396 Pts
Do you believe that the United States should have more gun control?


The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." [3] The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. [51] Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights." [52]

Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A Nov. 26, 2013 study found that, between 1980 and 2009, "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." [103] While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. [53] John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, stated, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes... The effect on 'shall-issue' [concealed gun] laws on these crimes [where two or more people were killed] has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent and injuries by 82 percent." [54] A Dec. 10, 2014 Pew survey found that 57% of people believe that owning a gun protects them from being victimized. [55] Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law… Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'" [56

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. [57] The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." [58] Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." [59] Constitutions in 37 US states protect the right to bear arms for self-defense, most with explicit language such as Alabama's: "every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." [60] [61] Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, stated, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." [62] A May 9, 2013 48% of convicted felons surveyed admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed with a gun. [63] Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. [58] Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s. [64]

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, and they spent $7.7 billion on guns, sights, ammunition, and other hunting equipment. [65] [66] High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. [67] According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie… [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." [68] According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting. [58]


Sources -
1) https://gun-control.procon.org/
Nathaniel_B
  1. ?

    11 votes
    1. Yes
      27.27%
    2. No
      72.73%
DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Guns can be used by people to defend themselves or hunting animals. If there would be more gun control, many people may not be able to get guns, even though they may want to purchase a gun/s for defending them or hunting animals.
    Zombieguy1987
  • In my view, taking weaponry away from people is one of the best things the government can do on its way of building an authoritarian state. Once people have been deprived of means to fight the government that no longer serves people's interests, the government necessarily has to stop serving people's interests and start serving its own.

    The 1st and the 2nd Amendment are easily the two greatest pieces in the history of lawmaking in the entire world, and as long as these two amendments are upheld, I am not worried about the future of this country. It is when these two Amendments become threatened that we should become concerned with our country being overrun by Big Brother advocates.
    George_HorseNathaniel_BZombieguy1987Applesauce
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 221 Pts
    edited November 22
    @MayCaesar keep in mind there has never been a successful revolution in the history of mankind that want backed by either a domestic or foreign professional military. Even the Americans were backed by the French and Spanish. However I do imagine if there were a revolution in America, of any ideology, it would probably get backed by either Russia or China.

    That said I don't care about gun control, but if you want a society with guns you can't be upset over most gun deaths, that's just part of the cost. The same way deaths in car accidents is the cost of having cars.
    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    "The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB,"

    We seem to live in a day and age, where gun violence is sadly chronicled via the news media, and by word of mouth when a crime takes place.

    "From the Vox.com

    At Chicago’s Mercy Hospital, domestic violence became multiple homicide. It’s part of a disturbing pattern.

    The majority of mass shootings are related to domestic or family violence. But simple policy changes could save lives."


    "From 3CBS in Philly

    4 People Found Shot, Killed Execution-Style In Southwest Philadelphia Basement, Police Say

    PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — Four people were found shot and killed execution-style in a basement in Southwest Philadelphia on Monday afternoon. Philadelphia police say two men and two women were found in the basement of the home on the 5100 block of Malcolm Street with one gunshot wound each to the head."

    Because firearms were used in both of the incidents, it would appear that the rights of some were infringed upon by offenders using firearms? 

    Wouldn't it be a grand moment to the very core of humanity itself, if the thousands of offenders refrained from using a firearm, or multiple firearm's to commit their various crimes with? 

    From "The Washington Post"

    "There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership

    There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over."

    A question comes to mind, are some of the offenders maybe in a sense taking the 2nd Amendment, and the right to bear arms, and when they commit their crimes with firearms, are using the 2nd Amendment against itself? 

    So if a legally licensed firearm owner, acts in a lawful manner, and is a law abiding citizen, then the 2nd Amendment is being respected.

    But if an individual utilizes a firearm while committing a crime, then the offender is disrespecting the very essence of what the 2nd Amendment says and means to the lawful firearm owner? 

    Not only does that place the 2nd Amendment at a disadvantage, it also places society at a disadvantage itself, when offenders illegally use firearms to commit their crimes with? 


  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    @WordsMatter

    "That said I don't care about gun control, but if you want a society with guns you can't be upset over most gun deaths, that's just part of the cost."

    You could reach out to the websites like "the Vox.com, or 3CBS in Philly, and ask them if they could feature your above point of view in a news story, and see how it goes over in those communities affected by those crimes? 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 756 Pts
    edited November 22
    @WordsMatter ;

    Having or not having the right to own something has little to do with the incidents that something is involved in. Both Japan and Russia offer pretty easy ways to obtain driver's license, and neither has any restrictions barring minimal age ones on who can or cannot drive - however, in Japan road accidents barely ever happen, while in Russia you will rarely find an experienced driver who has not had, at least, one car completely destroyed over their lifetime.

    It is not what you have right to own - many tools will be obtained regardless of any restrictions. It is about the culture of using it. The right to own something sets the relationship between the citizens and the government in that regard; the actual owners are what defines how that something is going to be used.

    In this regard, the American society is somewhat lacking. In, say, Switzerland or Finland, where obtaining a firearm is similarly easy, gun deaths barely ever happen. In the US, many states have taken measures to increase gun possession restrictions, and ironically the states with more restrictions tend to be the ones with more gun deaths.

    The fact that Americans as a whole are pretty careless with their possessions (that goes both for firearms and cars; American drivers tend to speed and minorly break rules all the time, and as such the traffic accidents here are quite a bit more common than in many other First World countries) in no way implies that the right to own firearms should be infringed upon. In fact, it demands the contrary, as people must have means to defend themselves from each other, as well as from the usurpers in the government. And whether the actual defense from the government is practically possible is not that important; it is the principle that counts, and it is the constant threat of being resisted that makes the government obedient.

    Lastly, it is not constructive to be upset over anything. What is constructive is thinking why it happened and considering ways to prevent it in the future without infringing on people's constitutional rights.
    George_HorseNathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • Depends on the "type" of control. Do you mean banning semi-automatic rifles? Then no, otherwise I am not sure how exactly gun sales can be "controlled". Yes of course we cannot own automatic firing rifles, but what about semi-automatic firearms? We simply need to revise the background check system, to screen those with anger issues, and those who display misanthropic patterns. 
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • The argument that people need firearms to defend themselves from a hypothetical tyrannical government will always amuse me. For one thing, these people assume that the U.S. military, which is currently comprised of Americans who are volunteering for service, would just blindly follow the orders of this tyrannical government. Soldiers and officers in the U.S military are trained to follow the just war theory, which places an emphasis on following lawful and morally justified orders. Two things for which a tyrannical government would be hard pressed to produce. That's not even considering the fact that the individual states would probably be in an up roar and most likely resist, which they could do with their national guard which are actually trained soldiers and would fair far better then common place citizens. At the same time however the idea that the gun owners could some how resist a tyrannical government is absurd. If lady liberty suddenly turned evil there is absolutely nothing we could do to stop her. Do you really think some semi auto rifles are going to stop the now evil U.S. military? Tell me how well that goes when M1-Abram tanks start rolling through houses or when B-1s and F-35s start dropping ordinance on particularly unruly neighborhoods. Or would you like to think about the CIA and NSA tracking down possible resistant members and "taking care" of them before the conflict even started, which would be easy considering modern day surveillance technology. At the end of the day the argument that people require firearms to protect themselves is illogical from any perspective. 
    George_HorseNathaniel_BCYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • @McSloth At the end of the day the argument that people require firearms to protect themselves is illogical from any perspective. 


    So champ, someone comes into your house with the purpose to kill or harm anyone inside, how will you defend yourself? Now imagine that with children, how will they be saved from death?
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • McSloth said:
    The argument that people need firearms to defend themselves from a hypothetical tyrannical government will always amuse me. For one thing, these people assume that the U.S. military, which is currently comprised of Americans who are volunteering for service, would just blindly follow the orders of this tyrannical government. Soldiers and officers in the U.S military are trained to follow the just war theory, which places an emphasis on following lawful and morally justified orders. Two things for which a tyrannical government would be hard pressed to produce. That's not even considering the fact that the individual states would probably be in an up roar and most likely resist, which they could do with their national guard which are actually trained soldiers and would fair far better then common place citizens. At the same time however the idea that the gun owners could some how resist a tyrannical government is absurd. If lady liberty suddenly turned evil there is absolutely nothing we could do to stop her. Do you really think some semi auto rifles are going to stop the now evil U.S. military? Tell me how well that goes when M1-Abram tanks start rolling through houses or when B-1s and F-35s start dropping ordinance on particularly unruly neighborhoods. Or would you like to think about the CIA and NSA tracking down possible resistant members and "taking care" of them before the conflict even started, which would be easy considering modern day surveillance technology. At the end of the day the argument that people require firearms to protect themselves is illogical from any perspective. 

    The argument that amuses me is the anti-gun argument, "but, but, but what good is a rifle against tanks and bombers and missiles."  I can't believe people still cling to this argument decades after it has proven itself to be in error.  Almost 2 decades ago, a few people armed only with box-cutters brought down some of the tallest buildings in the world and started what would be America's longest war to date, against an enemy that was armed with nothing more than small arms.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • George_Horse
  • @George_Horse

    Well the chances of someone coming into my house to try and kill me are astronomically low but hey I'll amuse you. I would use one of the two tasers that I keep in my apartment, either the one in my bedside table or the one sitting on a shelve near the front door. 
  • The safest and unsafest cities have little to do with gun control and more to do with economic hardship and lack of opportunity. It is like saying vaccines cause autism. event A and event B because they come in chronological order doesn't mean one caused the other. On the other side of it because of City of Chicago is located next to a state as Indiana where the gun laws are extremely low. Also from a practicality standpoint on this is with the first amendment not yelling fire in a movie theater. where things such as you must lock up your weapons, violent offenders should lose there rights for a period of time and have to take courses after that time expires, a completed background check, things of this nature. The fact that you can't get on a plane because you're risk to the safety of flight but still buy a gun is astounding. Also if your kid steals your gun you should be held liable, or if someone steals your gun and you fail to report it and they do something with it after a certain time period you should be held responsible. To accomplish anything sensible or reasonable is almost impossible.
  • @CYDdharta

    I'm not sure exactly you're arguing here and how it pertains to anything I said in my post. I was arguing that in the hypothetically situation in which citizens of this country found themselves pitted against a tyrannical United States government would be completely and utterly crushed in all likely hood. I also argued that to use this hypothetically situation as an argument for gun ownership is illogical, especially when you consider the fact that better arguments exist when it comes to gun ownership (which I actually support). I might not have especially said this in my first post but I also never argued against the ownership of firearms, just against the argument that gun ownership is somehow justified by a non existent threat of an evil U.S. Government. Also I think your argument has a key flaw in it, the 9/11 terrorist were not attempting to wage war against the United States, they simply wanted to hurt us which they succeed in. The United States was the one that decided to declare war, and on a country that had next to nothing to do with what happened, but that is a different beast all together. What would the objective be the citizens resisting the United States? If it was simply to hurt the government then sure, I am nothing but confident in the ability of Americans to do some damage, but if you think there is winning such a conflict then you are fooling yourself. Armed citizens would not stand a change against a tyrannical US military that would more then likely have no problem throwing morality and normal military operating doctrine out the window. Also what about my argument about the chances of the US military refusing to follow orders from a tyrannical government? I would love to hear your thoughts on the manner.

    Now if you don't mind, I would love to ask you a different question. How do you deal with living in fear of your own government? I'm honestly curious to how you deal with the stress and worry that no doubt accompanies such a belief. Also do you call this mythos that you hold a positive force in your life and if so, how? Considering that from where I stand it only causes you unnecessary worry and distrust of the system that we all live in and most likely will continue to live in. I'm quite the fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, if you haven't heard of him I would encourage you to read some of his work, especially "The Birth of Tragedy and Beyond Good and Evil". He writes quite a bit about the idea of celebrating life and the importance of examining beliefs that cause you unjustified suffering or harm. There is no evidence that supports the idea that the United States is or ever will become a tyrannical government. And let me preempt your argument of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union, for yes they took away their peoples right to defend themselves and then committed atrocities against them. The United States is not those countries and to some how draw a comparison between the countries is in no way based on reason or logic. The United States has a system of checks and balances and a system of federalism that did not exit in either Germany or the Soviet Union at the time. The founders of this country and the people who came after them, went to great lengths to create a system of government that would prevent something like that from ever transpiring and so far it seems like its working fine, so what causes you to have concern still? 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 735 Pts
    edited December 7
    McSloth said:
    @CYDdharta

    I'm not sure exactly you're arguing here and how it pertains to anything I said in my post. I was arguing that in the hypothetically situation in which citizens of this country found themselves pitted against a tyrannical United States government would be completely and utterly crushed in all likely hood. I also argued that to use this hypothetically situation as an argument for gun ownership is illogical, especially when you consider the fact that better arguments exist when it comes to gun ownership (which I actually support). I might not have especially said this in my first post but I also never argued against the ownership of firearms, just against the argument that gun ownership is somehow justified by a non existent threat of an evil U.S. Government. Also I think your argument has a key flaw in it, the 9/11 terrorist were not attempting to wage war against the United States, they simply wanted to hurt us which they succeed in. The United States was the one that decided to declare war, and on a country that had next to nothing to do with what happened, but that is a different beast all together. What would the objective be the citizens resisting the United States? If it was simply to hurt the government then sure, I am nothing but confident in the ability of Americans to do some damage, but if you think there is winning such a conflict then you are fooling yourself. Armed citizens would not stand a change against a tyrannical US military that would more then likely have no problem throwing morality and normal military operating doctrine out the window. Also what about my argument about the chances of the US military refusing to follow orders from a tyrannical government? I would love to hear your thoughts on the manner.

    You have already been proven wrong.  The US military couldn't crush all resistance in Afghanistan going house-to-house through entire neighborhoods, there is no way they could stop it in an average US city.  What are they going to do, start throwing around nukes??  It really is a stupid premise.  If we lack the will to unleash the full power of the US military on foreign countries, what in the world leads you to conclude that they'd do so inside their own country?!?  It's asinine to even suggest such a thing.  Have you paid any attention to US military operation at all over the last few decades??  When they're about to attack a city, they give the residents a head's up so that non-combatants can leave safely.  Do you somehow think our military would do less to it's own people???  No military engages in total warfare anymore.  If they/we aren't willing to kill off innocents in a foreign country they/we certainly won't do it here.  Any suggestion that the US government would crush an insurgency is ridiculous and lacks awareness of recent history.  Use of military force is selective and about winning hearts and minds, you seem to be under the erroneous impression that the doctrine on it's own people would instead be "kill em all, let God sort it out". 


    Now if you don't mind, I would love to ask you a different question. How do you deal with living in fear of your own government? I'm honestly curious to how you deal with the stress and worry that no doubt accompanies such a belief. Also do you call this mythos that you hold a positive force in your life and if so, how? Considering that from where I stand it only causes you unnecessary worry and distrust of the system that we all live in and most likely will continue to live in. I'm quite the fan of Friedrich Nietzsche, if you haven't heard of him I would encourage you to read some of his work, especially "The Birth of Tragedy and Beyond Good and Evil". He writes quite a bit about the idea of celebrating life and the importance of examining beliefs that cause you unjustified suffering or harm. There is no evidence that supports the idea that the United States is or ever will become a tyrannical government. And let me preempt your argument of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union, for yes they took away their peoples right to defend themselves and then committed atrocities against them. The United States is not those countries and to some how draw a comparison between the countries is in no way based on reason or logic. The United States has a system of checks and balances and a system of federalism that did not exit in either Germany or the Soviet Union at the time. The founders of this country and the people who came after them, went to great lengths to create a system of government that would prevent something like that from ever transpiring and so far it seems like its working fine, so what causes you to have concern still?

    Why do you assume I have an unwarranted fear of my government? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta to be fair if the government truly is tyrannical I could see them killing innocent people if it helps squash an insurrection. The Syrian government was bombing their own people so it is still a possibility for governments to do.

    However I think a way more important question to consider is the actual fact of everyone owning guns in a polarized nation. Let's just use Trump and Obama as examples. Under both administrations the oppositions each had parts of them explaining that Obama/Trump we're trying to destroy America and are tyrants. Let's say either Democrats or Republicans decide that one of those two is a tyrant that they must take up arms to stop.

    I'm sure if Democrats began to fight the government to remove Trump, you would be carrying your guns around to protect yourself or fight back at them when you saw them. Assuming the military can't fight door to door to stop a rebellion, if it's not the vast majority of people vs. the government, then it would be interesting to see how a rebellion would fair when their neighbors are also armed and still view the government as just.

    In no way am I arguing for gun control here. I just find this to be an interesting scenario which really has never played out anywhere in the world. The common narrative is people vs. government but in reality wouldn't it be more like people vs. other people + government?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta to be fair if the government truly is tyrannical I could see them killing innocent people if it helps squash an insurrection. The Syrian government was bombing their own people so it is still a possibility for governments to do.

    OTOH, the Syrian Civil War undermines the position that a government can crush a rebellion through military force.  Syrian civilians had nowhere near the number of small arms that the US has, yet even while using WMDs against its own people, the government has not been able to stop the opposition.  Why would anyone think the US military would be more successful?


    However I think a way more important question to consider is the actual fact of everyone owning guns in a polarized nation. Let's just use Trump and Obama as examples. Under both administrations the oppositions each had parts of them explaining that Obama/Trump we're trying to destroy America and are tyrants. Let's say either Democrats or Republicans decide that one of those two is a tyrant that they must take up arms to stop.

    I'm sure if Democrats began to fight the government to remove Trump, you would be carrying your guns around to protect yourself or fight back at them when you saw them. Assuming the military can't fight door to door to stop a rebellion, if it's not the vast majority of people vs. the government, then it would be interesting to see how a rebellion would fair when their neighbors are also armed and still view the government as just.

    In no way am I arguing for gun control here. I just find this to be an interesting scenario which really has never played out anywhere in the world. The common narrative is people vs. government but in reality wouldn't it be more like people vs. other people + government?

    I don't see why it would be different than it was in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria...  Every community would have people who are loyal to the government, people who are loyal to the opposition and people who aren't loyal to anyone.  We saw what happened in Baghdad after the invasion, I don't see why New York or Baltimore would be any different. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta I would think the U.S. military could be more successful because in Syria you had foreign militaries openly involved in the civil war so it wasn't really the government vs. civilians it was the government and Russia vs. civilians and America. If foreign militaries get involved in a U.S. uprising I think you would be right that the military probably wouldn't be effective.

    Gun ownership isn't considered a right in the countries the U.S. is fighting in. The government has a stronger ability to regulate who can and can't get guns. Whereas in America its relatively easy for any adult to get a gun. I feel if no foreign entities were involved it would be easier for both sides of the civilians to arm themselves than in the middle Eastern country. 

    In the middle East you would have to get your weapons from the government or a more cohesive organization like the Taliban, who is having their weapons supplied to them by a foreign country. However in the U.S. if a civil war began and you didn't own a weapon you probably have a friend with an extra one. People falling on either side could arm themselves seemingly overnight with probably little trouble.

    I don't really know exactly how it would work because no country really allows gun ownership in the same way as the U.S. so it could be different but there are no examples to point to. It could make no difference but if it didn't make a difference then why would owning guns matter in the first place? I'm sure gun ownership would have some effect on both the rebels and loyalists in fighting.
  • MayCaesar said:
    In my view, taking weaponry away from people is one of the best things the government can do on its way of building an authoritarian state. Once people have been deprived of means to fight the government that no longer serves people's interests, the government necessarily has to stop serving people's interests and start serving its own.

    The 1st and the 2nd Amendment are easily the two greatest pieces in the history of lawmaking in the entire world, and as long as these two amendments are upheld, I am not worried about the future of this country. It is when these two Amendments become threatened that we should become concerned with our country being overrun by Big Brother advocates.

    If "taking weaponry away from people is one of the best things the government can do on its way to building an authoritarian state" then why did Hitler loosen gun restrictions in Germany, following the outright gun ban put in place by the Weimar Republic? Your belief is extremely naive because modern authoritarian governments no longer need to use violence to control people. Since the inception of mass media authoritarian governments have much more effective options such as state media.  Controlling what you think is a much more favourable option to modern governments than burning villages, and the sheer irony is that America is the world leader in public indoctrination. It beats even China and Russia. If Trump does not represent authoritarianism then frankly I don't know who does. So why are people not storming the Bastille?


  • McSloth said:
    @George_Horse

    Well the chances of someone coming into my house to try and kill me are astronomically low but hey I'll amuse you. I would use one of the two tasers that I keep in my apartment, either the one in my bedside table or the one sitting on a shelve near the front door. 

    *Assuming that a taser would work against every intruder*



    That's for YOU living in your neighborhood, in your state schmuck. You think the chances of your house being broke into are low elsewhere in this country? 
    Zombieguy1987Nomenclature
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @George_Horse

    But you assume a gun would always work? Gun jams and misfires are common, as is missing your target and shooting an innocent bystander.

    All pro gun arguments are built from fallacy. In this case your fallacy is: double standards.
    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • @George_Horse

    But you assume a gun would always work? Gun jams and misfires are common, as is missing your target and shooting an innocent bystander.

    All pro gun arguments are built from fallacy. In this case your fallacy is: double standards.
    Ugh, another one.



    Proper handling and maintenance can ensure that a firearm is ready to fire when necessary. I haven't really got to using mine besides going out to the range. And missing and hitting a "innocent" bystander? Number one, I've had proper training, number two, I'm talking about being in my room in my house, not outside. All your anti-gun arguments are based on false information. Had guns not been in the hands of many law-abiding citizens when intruders entered their homes, they might not be alive today. There are literally HUNDREDS of cases where gun ownership saved lives. 
    Zombieguy1987NomenclatureNathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 7 Pts
    edited December 8
    @George_Horse

    But you assume a gun would always work? Gun jams and misfires are common, as is missing your target and shooting an innocent bystander.

    All pro gun arguments are built from fallacy. In this case your fallacy is: double standards.
    Ugh, another one.



    Proper handling and maintenance can ensure that a firearm is ready to fire when necessary. I haven't really got to using mine besides going out to the range. And missing and hitting a "innocent" bystander? Number one, I've had proper training, number two, I'm talking about being in my room in my house, not outside. All your anti-gun arguments are based on false information. Had guns not been in the hands of many law-abiding citizens when intruders entered their homes, they might not be alive today. There are literally HUNDREDS of cases where gun ownership saved lives. 
    False. If your claim were true then weapons used by the military would never jam or misfire. The military trains its soldiers to keep their weapons in peak condition, but accidents still happen because normal people understand that they only have a limited amount of control over reality. Countless innocent people lose their lives to guns each year as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it is patently clear that, as an American, you are in a state of denial about this, as indeed you are in a state of denial about the utility of guns generally.

    As a normal person, I find it extraordinary that anybody could seriously believe that "training" will prevent a gun jamming, misfiring, or a bystander running across your line of fire at the wrong moment. Since you have evidently proven that you are unprepared to honour the law of reason, why not simply be honest and admit you just want a gun because you think they make you look cool? That is what it is really about, and the excuses you keep throwing in the way of admitting it are decorations. You have watched too many movies and it has altered your perception of reality.

    As regards your final claim (amusing because Americans always seem to think caps lock turns an error into a fact) then the demonstrable reality of the matter is that SIGNIFICANTLY more guns are used for the purpose of crime than for self-defence. Guns are used for self-defence in less than one percent of crimes. Your faux belief is debunked in significant detail here:-

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
    Nathaniel_BGeorge_Horse
  • @George_Horse

    But you assume a gun would always work? Gun jams and misfires are common, as is missing your target and shooting an innocent bystander.

    All pro gun arguments are built from fallacy. In this case your fallacy is: double standards.
    Ugh, another one.



    Proper handling and maintenance can ensure that a firearm is ready to fire when necessary. I haven't really got to using mine besides going out to the range. And missing and hitting a "innocent" bystander? Number one, I've had proper training, number two, I'm talking about being in my room in my house, not outside. All your anti-gun arguments are based on false information. Had guns not been in the hands of many law-abiding citizens when intruders entered their homes, they might not be alive today. There are literally HUNDREDS of cases where gun ownership saved lives. 

    @George_Horse

    Your first claim is quite clearly spectacularly false. Soldiers are highly trained and keep their firearms in peak mechanical condition as part of their jobs. Nevertheless, jams and misfires occur frequently during combat.  Normal people tend to understand that we only have a limited amount of control over reality and so, however careful we might be, we cannot eliminate the possibility of something going wrong. We also have very little control over the possibility of a bystander running into our line of fire at precisely the most inopportune moment. It takes a particularly bizarre kind of arrogance to believe one is always in full control of outcomes, because that is essentially the same thing as believing one is God.

    Furthermore, your rhetoric about guns saving lives is also extremely misleading, since guns are used for self-defence in less than one percent of crimes. Significantly more guns are used in crimes than are used in self-defence, so it is abundantly clear guns are doing more damage to society than they are preventing. I think the fact of the matter is that you have simply watched too many movies and it has unfortunately altered your perception of reality.

    I would suggest you start by getting information from reputable sources. Not John Rambo or the NRA. For example:-

    For every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime

    Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American

    George_HorseZombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
  • @yolostide

    You do not need a gun which fires live rounds to hunt animals. I live in the UK and plenty of people hunt animals using powerful modified air rifles.
    Zombieguy1987George_Horse
  • @CYDdharta to be fair if the government truly is tyrannical I could see them killing innocent people if it helps squash an insurrection. The Syrian government was bombing their own people so it is still a possibility for governments to do.

    However I think a way more important question to consider is the actual fact of everyone owning guns in a polarized nation. Let's just use Trump and Obama as examples. Under both administrations the oppositions each had parts of them explaining that Obama/Trump we're trying to destroy America and are tyrants. Let's say either Democrats or Republicans decide that one of those two is a tyrant that they must take up arms to stop.

    I'm sure if Democrats began to fight the government to remove Trump, you would be carrying your guns around to protect yourself or fight back at them when you saw them. Assuming the military can't fight door to door to stop a rebellion, if it's not the vast majority of people vs. the government, then it would be interesting to see how a rebellion would fair when their neighbors are also armed and still view the government as just.

    In no way am I arguing for gun control here. I just find this to be an interesting scenario which really has never played out anywhere in the world. The common narrative is people vs. government but in reality wouldn't it be more like people vs. other people + government?
    Let us say you are right and the US government, for whatever reason, decides to bomb its own citizens. Exactly what use is small arms fire going to be against a bureaucracy armed with tanks, helicopter gunships, nuclear missiles and bunker buster bombs? What happens right now when armed citizens decide that, contrary to the government's wishes, they don't want to go to jail? This entire argument is rooted in a plethora of demonstrably false premises. Firstly, that small arms fire is any kind of adequate defence against a superpower government. You might as well be talking about pea shooters or potato guns for all the good a rifle or shotgun is going to do against the might of the US military. Secondly, that civilised first world governments still need to use violence to control their populations. Social control was already a science by the late 1930s thanks to writers like Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. The government has precious little need for violence in civilised political structures. Thirdly, that guns are ever actually used to defend against government corruption in the first place. The statistics show unequivocally -- at least in the US -- that guns are predominantly used by citizens to kill other citizens, or by criminals to kill other criminals. I would shudder to even contemplate the inordinately low number of occasions guns have been used to stop corrupt government officials in the US, to the point that I would be tempted to wager it has not happened even once in the last fifty years.
    Zombieguy1987WordsMatter
  • @George_Horse

    Your first claim is quite clearly spectacularly false. Soldiers are highly trained and keep their firearms in peak mechanical condition as part of their jobs. Nevertheless, jams and misfires occur frequently during combat.  Normal people tend to understand that we only have a limited amount of control over reality and so, however careful we might be, we cannot eliminate the possibility of something going wrong. We also have very little control over the possibility of a bystander running into our line of fire at precisely the most inopportune moment. It takes a particularly bizarre kind of arrogance to believe one is always in full control of outcomes, because that is essentially the same thing as believing one is God.

    Furthermore, your rhetoric about guns saving lives is also extremely misleading, since guns are used for self-defence in less than one percent of crimes. Significantly more guns are used in crimes than are used in self-defence, so it is abundantly clear guns are doing more damage to society than they are preventing. I think the fact of the matter is that you have simply watched too many movies and it has unfortunately altered your perception of reality.

    I would suggest you start by getting information from reputable sources. Not John Rambo or the NRA. For example:-

    For every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime

    Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American


    *the UK is a different country but thinks it is the same as America*



    The UK is not the same as America. No wonder crime rates are high, murders are rarely committed with firearms, but with knives. So how does that gun ban do good for you now? Here's a quote for you: "London' murder rate rose above New York's for the first time"

    And another: "While New York's murder rate decreased from the end of January, London's rose"

    So an important question for you: what other resource shall people turn to if guns are banned or restricted for self-defense in their homes? Areas high with crime? What shall they do when the response of police is slow?
    Zombieguy1987Nathaniel_B
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes." ~Gene Roddenberry

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @CYDdharta to be fair if the government truly is tyrannical I could see them killing innocent people if it helps squash an insurrection. The Syrian government was bombing their own people so it is still a possibility for governments to do.

    However I think a way more important question to consider is the actual fact of everyone owning guns in a polarized nation. Let's just use Trump and Obama as examples. Under both administrations the oppositions each had parts of them explaining that Obama/Trump we're trying to destroy America and are tyrants. Let's say either Democrats or Republicans decide that one of those two is a tyrant that they must take up arms to stop.

    I'm sure if Democrats began to fight the government to remove Trump, you would be carrying your guns around to protect yourself or fight back at them when you saw them. Assuming the military can't fight door to door to stop a rebellion, if it's not the vast majority of people vs. the government, then it would be interesting to see how a rebellion would fair when their neighbors are also armed and still view the government as just.

    In no way am I arguing for gun control here. I just find this to be an interesting scenario which really has never played out anywhere in the world. The common narrative is people vs. government but in reality wouldn't it be more like people vs. other people + government?
    Let us say you are right and the US government, for whatever reason, decides to bomb its own citizens. Exactly what use is small arms fire going to be against a bureaucracy armed with tanks, helicopter gunships, nuclear missiles and bunker buster bombs? What happens right now when armed citizens decide that, contrary to the government's wishes, they don't want to go to jail? This entire argument is rooted in a plethora of demonstrably false premises. Firstly, that small arms fire is any kind of adequate defence against a superpower government. You might as well be talking about pea shooters or potato guns for all the good a rifle or shotgun is going to do against the might of the US military. Secondly, that civilised first world governments still need to use violence to control their populations. Social control was already a science by the late 1930s thanks to writers like Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. The government has precious little need for violence in civilised political structures. Thirdly, that guns are ever actually used to defend against government corruption in the first place. The statistics show unequivocally -- at least in the US -- that guns are predominantly used by citizens to kill other citizens, or by criminals to kill other criminals. I would shudder to even contemplate the inordinately low number of occasions guns have been used to stop corrupt government officials in the US, to the point that I would be tempted to wager it has not happened even once in the last fifty years.
    In what universe is it a good idea to compare the U.K to the U.S.A. One allows it's citizens to own guns, while the other doesn't. Thats an apples to oranges comparison 

    If anything you should compare Switzerland to the U.S, because both of them have similar gun laws, and as such would be a more fairer comparison 
    Nathaniel_B
  • @Nomenclature

    In all of your arguments, you completely ignore one of the most important consequences of an armed society: its ability to deter people or governments from initiating violence. A criminal is much less likely, say, to go and try to rob a small bank, when the criminal knows that a lot of clients and employees can be armed. Similarly, a government is much less likely to start fighting against its citizens, when it knows that those citizens have hundreds millions firearms. Will the government win a full-scale war (assuming the entire military fights on its side)? Probably. But the cost of such a victory would be tremendous, and with so many people killed the government will probably not last long.

    Hitler started exterminating Jews because Jews did not have the means to fight back. If every Jew was armed, do you think Hitler would go for it? Warring against common citizens is an extremely dangerous endeavour, as Afghanistan perfectly demonstrated both against Soviets and NATO: when anyone walking by can be carrying a hidden weapon and can decide to use it at any point, then winning the war becomes essentially impossible, since you never know who your enemy even is.

    You also linked the statistics that shows that for every gun used in self-defense, six more are used to commit a crime. The source seems extremely biased, but even so, 1-to-6 is a pretty good rate. Since there is a lot of crime with guns involved in the US, a large number of people actually have their lives saved due to guns. Your narrative in a way defeats itself.
    Zombieguy1987OppolzerGeorge_HorseWordsMattercheesycheeseNathaniel_B
  • Gun ban ain't stop the boys up in Chiraq from killin each other. They still killin, and for me living in a good area of Michigan, but still much crime, I need a gun to protect myself. Can't trust them cops either, slow and racist, so always a good thing to stay strapped. Its a jungle out there. 
    “Communism is evil. Its driving forces are the deadly sins of envy and hatred.” ~Peter Drucker 

    "It's not a gun control problem, it's a cultural control problem."
    Bob Barr
  • @Nathaniel_B exactly, Chicago is an example of what happens with tighter gun control but still legal guns. It just opens up a market for individuals who can still easily buy guns to sell them to those that can't. If all guns are illegal that market would be harder for the average person to enter, but stricter gun control really doesn't change much. 

    Guns will not be illegal anytime soon so anyone pushing for strict controls is in vain.
    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987George_Horse
  • Can everyone at least agree that something needs to be done? Whatever your stance is on the issue of gun rights, everyone (I hope at least) is capable enough to see that the United States has a serious problem with gun violence and that is a good enough place to start with me. We might all disagree with how we would solve the problem but at this point I'm willing to pick solutions out of a hat and try them until one works. In action gets our country no where and the fact that congress has yet to pass any sort of solution in the form of legislation is beyond me, even with the amount of support they could garner for such legislation. I wouldn't even care if the proposed solution was something extreme like mandating every citizen carry a firearm on them. At the very least we could say our leaders are at least trying something instead of just sitting on their hands while Americans continue to die in droves. I think the conversation needs to be steered in this far more productive and meaningful direction, what solutions are there to gun violence?   
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    From YouTube:




  • McSloth said:
    Can everyone at least agree that something needs to be done? Whatever your stance is on the issue of gun rights, everyone (I hope at least) is capable enough to see that the United States has a serious problem with gun violence and that is a good enough place to start with me. We might all disagree with how we would solve the problem but at this point I'm willing to pick solutions out of a hat and try them until one works. In action gets our country no where and the fact that congress has yet to pass any sort of solution in the form of legislation is beyond me, even with the amount of support they could garner for such legislation. I wouldn't even care if the proposed solution was something extreme like mandating every citizen carry a firearm on them. At the very least we could say our leaders are at least trying something instead of just sitting on their hands while Americans continue to die in droves. I think the conversation needs to be steered in this far more productive and meaningful direction, what solutions are there to gun violence?   

    This reminds me of the global warming debate.  What is the proper number of murders per year in a country of 330 million people of all different socio-ethnic backgrounds and statuses that respects personal liberty?  0 may be the ideal, but it's hardly realistic.  So what is the right number?  IMO, whatever we're doing seems to be working quite well.  Our homicide rate has been dropping steadily for a quarter of a century.  Our nation hasn't been this peaceful since the 1960s.  That's especially impressive, since the population has increased by over 40%.

    George_Horse
  • @CYDdharta

    How does the debate about gun violence remind you of the issue of climate change? Gun violence is something we should try and reduce because its the morally right thing to do, we have to solve climate change or everyone everywhere is going to feel the impact of a changing climate in ways most people can hardly imagine and that is not fear mongering by the way, its simply the truth. Back to the issue of gun violence though, why should we ever be satisfied with the status quo? I'm not saying the United States will ever reach 0 gun deaths, but you don't think we can do better then 37,000 people a year ? I think the United States has made great progress and its something we should celebrate instead of ignore it like so many people do, however why should we stop if there is still progress to be made? I don't think we should ever be satisfied with how things are, this country and its people should always strive to better at everything we do. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @McSloth I don't think the answer to reducing gun violence is going to be found in any legislation that directly targets guns. Instead things like easier and more affordable access to mental health care, creation of jobs, removing mandatory reporting of felon status to apply for jobs, and even just more general gun safety course will lower the violence.

    This is a society where guns are legal and I can't see that changing anytime soon. A society where guns are legal inherently comes with gun violence. We are in a society where cars are legal. Deaths due to vehicles are inherently a part of that. We don't make cars harder for people to get or ban the faster of less safe cars. We have public education campaigns to tell you not to text and drive, or to wear your seatbelt. We have public transportation and incentives to carpool via HOV lanes to cut down on the number of vehicles on the road.

    You can have a positive effect on a problem without trying to manipulate the variable in the problem directly.
    McSlothZombieguy1987ApplesauceGeorge_Horse
  • @WordsMatter

    That is a fantastic point, there are many many solutions that could be brought to the table and not all of them need to involve guns in the slightest. Our mental health system needs an over haul in practically every area, affordability, ease of access, quality of care etc. and I'm confident that if the United States invested in a robust and modern mental health care system things would look very different. However, if this country really wants to put a dent in gun violence then this country needs to go after the root cause of violence which is almost always poverty. Look at almost every metric, report, or study and poverty is always the leading cause of violence for any country. When you target poverty you end up solving for many of the societal issues that a country like the United States faces including gun violence. 
  • Figuring out the proper number of homicides is a lot like figuring out the right temperature, only a bit less complicated.  At least murders are real.  The only proof we have of global warming are a bunch of predictions from people with a history of making bad predictions.  Fear mongering at it's finest.  It's easy, and useless, to say murders and/or global temperature are too high without saying what the number of murders and/or the  temperature should be.  If less than 11,000 firearms murders in a country in a country with a population of 330,000,000 is too high, what should it be?  Is that a number that's so high that we need a major change of policy, or should we just leave it to states and communities to come up with solutions to crime problems more locally?

  • Louisiana has the highest murder rate AND the highest poverty rate.  Yet I've never heard anyone in government looking to see why and if that correlates to other states.  Which begs the question as to why these known statistics aren't studied for a solution, or at least a cause.  Imo it's part of the title in this thread  control.
    If guns were the problem then Alaska should be #1, but it's not, they have the highest gun ownership per capita of all the states.  If you study the stats honestly you will see that the laws make no difference with the murder rates or if you like there is no evidence that how strict state gun laws are has any impact on murder rates, since of the the loosest and strictest states are in the top 10 for lowest murder rates.
    w/o reinventing the wheel or rehashing the same stuff, I would draw your attention to https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2450/should-the-u-s-make-owning-guns-illegal/p1 for stats already posted etc.

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • TTKDBTTKDB 200 Pts
    Weapons control is simple, a weapon locked up, or isn't being "handled" by someone, can't be used by one human being against another.

    When the safety is on, or when a weapon is empty. 

    Weapons control is simple, it's the human being with a weapon in a negative way, that can go about complicating an Individuals life, a families life, or a group of individuals and their lives.

    Does anyone know how many people hurt others with a firearm yesterday? 

    Because one news story, involving a human being hurt another with a weapon is one too many. 

    323-325 million citizens in the United States, and there are roughly 300 million firearms in the United States? 

    Recreational weed gets legalized, and yet recreational weed is already being abused?

    Alcohol was legalized 8 plus decades ago, and yet alcohol is still getting abused?

    And here we have a (third situation,)in which citizens have the right to bear arms, via the Second Amendment, and yet there are shootings happening in various parts of the country, day in, and day out, month after month, and year after year? 

    Which means that there are individuals in the US who are apparently abusing their individual rights to bear arms, by using a firearm to commit their various crimes? 

    It can make some wonder, how an individual may perceive the rest of society, through their individual abuses? 




Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch