The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun - 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! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


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!

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun
in General

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 690 Pts
In regards to debate about guns, I hadn't really thought about this too deeply until now. The fact is though that a gun is the ultimate and most reliable way of self-defense.  As Sam Harris said in one of his articles:

Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics. https://samharris.org/the-riddle-of-the-gun/

Of course though, even better would be someone that is well versed in using a gun properly and has had some experience in the line of fire. Hence why I am also for armed guards in Schools but not for arming teachers.




Zombieguy1987xlJ_dolphin_473

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • Don't kill, and pretend to be prolife.
    Zombieguy1987GeoLibCogScientist
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 690 Pts
    Don't kill, and pretend to be prolife.
    What?...
    George_HorseZombieguy1987

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • @ZeusAres42 Did i stutter?
    George_HorseZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • @YeshuaRedeemed

    You didn't, but I fail to see how this comment is relevant in this topic...
    YeshuaRedeemedGeorge_HorseZombieguy1987
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Plaffelvohfen Meaning I question the hypocrisy of right to lifers who kill with guns, or otherwise. Either one values human life, or one does not.
    Zombieguy1987AlofRIGeoLibCogScientist
  • TKDBTKDB 292 Pts
    edited May 25
    @ZeusAres42

    "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."


    What if there isn't another citizen, with a gun to stop a criminal, or an offender, with a gun?

    Does that maybe, make those victims irrelevant in regards to your pro gun question?

    Does that make the Bill of Rights an irrelevant document, in the face of the Second Amendment itself? 

    Because there are more guns, in this country then there are innocent victims, and the police?

    393 million guns, verses 325 million U.S. citizens, and 900,000 Police Officers?

    Isn't a gun violence committed crime, by a first time offender, an offender, or criminal in general, are cruel and unusual punishments, towards their innocent victim, or victims?

    Where is the fair and equal moment, in your unequal and unfair question? 
    CYDdhartaGeorge_HorseZombieguy1987AlofRI
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    Don't kill, and pretend to be prolife.
    One can be pro-life and practice self-defense. In fact, self-defense is as pro-life as it gets. If someone needs to kill a criminal in order to keep from being killed, that does not mean they aren't pro-life; it means they didn't intend to allow someone else to kill them. Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. 
    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    edited June 17
    I cannot talk for the American experience but in my country citizens including out regular police force do not carry guns, the horrifying stats regarding gun deaths and accidents in America are truly shocking.

    The scenario just posted is a typical pro gun argument which is weak to say the least , why not invest in a decent house 
    alarm instead we all have them over here?

    I find it truly horrifying that Americans actually need armed guards at schools and are having a debate about arming schoolteachers what an appalling environment to bring up children.

    My country is rated 4th most peaceful in the world America has a dreadful rating of 121st place. I often wonder if a country like mine introduced guns into society for all citizens how would benefit our society? Would death and accident rates go up or down?

    Guns in society are to me regressive and divisive and not something I would want in any environment I wish to live in  

      
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • 波仔波仔 22 Pts
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

    George_HorseZombieguy1987
  • Dee said:
    I cannot talk for the American experience but in my country citizens including out regular police force do not carry guns, the horrifying stats regarding gun deaths and accidents in America are truly shocking.
    Yes, this is true and more could be done to reduce the gun violence in the states as well as other countries across the world for that matter. However, the argument is about the best way to stop a person with a gun in an imminent situation.
    The scenario just posted is a typical pro gun argument which is weak to say the least , why not invest in a decent house alarm instead we all have them over here?
    Did you read the whole article by Sam Harris by the way? Also, you're saying the scenario about stopping a bad person with a gun is a good guy with a gun is weak and a typical pro-gun argument right? Well, I'd have to contend just because it may be an argument by the pro-gun crowd does not mean it's weak or wrong. As mentioned before you can't reasonably expect the police to always get there in time to save you in an imminent situation. Being armed, however, you do have at least half a chance. 
    I find it truly horrifying that Americans actually need armed guards at schools and are having a debate about arming schoolteachers what an appalling environment to bring up children.
    I'd have to agree that arming teachers is ludicrous. Armed guards, however, is another matter. Also, in a country where this is not going away any time soon, this is all they have as a last resort of self-defense. It's not the perfect solution but it is a way of attempting to reduce further instances. 
    My country is rated 4th most peaceful in the world America has a dreadful rating of 121st place. I often wonder if a country like mine introduced guns into society for all citizens how would benefit our society? Would death and accident rates go up or down?
    All countries are different. We can only speculate here. Also, the mere fact of possessing a gun doesn't necessarily mean people will go on a rampage.
    Guns in society are to me regressive and divisive and not something I would want in any environment I wish to live in 

    I  agree. I would like this too but in a society that already has guns and that is gun crazy the only best way of defending yourself in an imminent situation is with a gun that you also possess yourself, know how to use safely and correctly.



    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    You  say .......Yes, this is true and more could be done to reduce the gun violence in the states as well as other countries across the world for that matter. 

    My reply ......Yes note that we are talking about gun violence less guns in society and we will less gun violence 


    You say .......However, the argument is about the best way to stop a person with a gun in an imminent situation. 

    My reply .....And is this the best way a person mostly who has never used a gun discharging a weapon in his home or on the streets?


    You say .......Did you read the whole article by Sam Harris by the way? 

    My reply ......I’ve read his views on the issue many times and find them unconvincing 


    You say .......Also, you're saying the scenario about stopping a bad person with a gun is a good guy with a gun is weak and a typical pro-gun argument right? Well, I'd have to contend just because it may be an argument by the pro-gun crowd does not mean it's weak or wrong. 

    My reply ......What makes it weak is the argument itself , that it’s a go to argument by the pro gun people must mean they think it’s actually a strong argument 


    You say ......As mentioned before you can't reasonably expect the police to always get there in time to save you in an imminent situation. Being armed, however, you do have at least half a chance.  

    My reply .....But again if it’s in your home why not have a house alarm? Normally at this stage a situation is invoked as in “what if the house alarm doesn’t work “ etc ,etc 

    Are citizens getting held up and threatened on the streets daily in America if not why do they need a gun?



    You say ......I'd have to agree that arming teachers is ludicrous. Armed guards, however, is another matter. Also, in a country where this is not going away any time soon, this is all they have as a last resort of self-defense. It's not the perfect solution but it is a way of attempting to reduce further instances

    My reply ......It’s tragic that it’s come to this in the U S 


    .  You say ......All countries are different. We can only speculate here. Also, the mere fact of possessing a gun doesn't necessarily mean people will go on a rampage. 

    My reply .......No they may not go on a rampage although some do yearly but there is no doubt that death and accident rates go up in societies that allow citizens to carry guns 



    You say  ........I  agree. I would like this too but in a society that already has guns and that is gun crazy the only best way of defending yourself in an imminent situation is with a gun that you also possess yourself, know how to use safely and correctly. 

    My reply ......Yes well yous have your gun rights but yous pay a huge price for them in gun deaths and accidents and that’s never going to change .....



    • An FBI study of 160 active-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2013 found that only one was stopped by an individual with a valid firearms permit. In contrast, 21 incidents were stopped by unarmed citizens.5
    • Armed citizens can worsen the outcome of a mass shooting. During the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, an armed bystander misidentified the perpetrator and almost shot the wrong person.6
    • Expansive concealed carry permitting laws are linked to an increase in violent crime. A 2017 study by researchers at Stanford University found that, 10 years after enacting these laws, states experienced a 13 percent to 15 percent rise in violent crimes.7
    • Using a gun for defense during a robbery has no significant benefits. A 2015 analysis by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health of the National Crime Victimization Survey found that the likelihood of sustaining an injury during a robbery was nearly identical between people who attempted to defend themselves with a gun and those who took no defensive action.8
    • A gun is more likely to be stolen than used to stop a crime. According to a CAP analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey, guns are nearly twice as likely to be stolen than to be used for self-defense.9



    CYDdharta
  • all4acttall4actt 71 Pts
    There are many cases both in home attacks and puplic attacks where good people have used their guns in the defense of themselves, or thier families or complete strangers.

    I agree that if you own a gun it is your responsinility to learn and practice using it.

    Cops are not always able to get to you in time. Alarm or not. Not everyone lives in a city where a cop is around the cornet.  Where i live it's a toss up on how long it takes them. It can be up to 25 min on an emergency.

    We had a situation here where the was a home invasion and all it took was the rifle (in this case) to be pointed at the invader to have him turn tail and run.

    So as in this case s gun wasn't used but was enough to get the man out of thier house.

    Most people, even gun owners, are not hot and heavy to kill people they just do it when they are given no other choice. Whether you chose to believe it or not most don't feel good about it when forced to make that choice 
  • @ZeusAres42 if ou have a gun in your home, you shoot your family, if you carry a gun in public you get in a fight and shoot your neighbor, statistics and studies over the years repeatedly indicate this  https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
    Zombieguy1987
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin


  • "You  say .......Yes, this is true and more could be done to reduce the gun violence in the states as well as other countries across the world for that matter. 

    My reply ......Yes note that we are talking about gun violence less guns in society and we will less gun violence."

    I am not discussing gun violence in general. The only argument I am making is that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a good that knows how to use it, is trained and responsible. Hence, why in countries such as the UK where I'm from you have an armed response team in cases of armed situations. You cannot reasonably expect the police to tackle an armed assailent unarmed.


    You say .......However, the argument is about the best way to stop a person with a gun in an imminent situation. 

    My reply .....And is this the best way a person mostly who has never used a gun discharging a weapon in his home or on the streets?

    No, hence why I also said someone that is also trained, responsible and knows how to use a firearm.


    "You say .......Also, you're saying the scenario about stopping a bad person with a gun is a good guy with a gun is weak and a typical pro-gun argument right? Well, I'd have to contend just because it may be an argument by the pro-gun crowd does not mean it's weak or wrong. 

    My reply ......What makes it weak is the argument itself , that it’s a go to argument by the pro gun people must mean they think it’s actually a strong argument"

    Can you actually elaborate as to why it is weak at all assuming you still do? Also, what would you say would be a better solution in an imminent situation?


    "You say ......As mentioned before you can't reasonably expect the police to always get there in time to save you in an imminent situation. Being armed, however, you do have at least half a chance.  

    My reply .....But again if it’s in your home why not have a house alarm? Normally at this stage a situation is invoked as in “what if the house alarm doesn’t work “ etc ,etc "

    Assuming this particular scenario if the criminal is a professional that knows what they're doing the house alarm is going to be much of a deterrent, and they will most likely commit their crime way before the police arrive.

    "Are citizens getting held up and threatened on the streets daily in America if not why do they need a gun?"

    I wouldn't know if Americans are getting held up and threatened on a daily basis in the streets.


    You say ......I'd have to agree that arming teachers is ludicrous. Armed guards, however, is another matter. Also, in a country where this is not going away any time soon, this is all they have as a last resort of self-defense. It's not the perfect solution but it is a way of attempting to reduce further instances

    My reply ......It’s tragic that it’s come to this in the U S 

    Hence why I also said I'd prefer armed guards that know what they're doing and are used to being in the line of fire.


    You say  ........I  agree. I would like this too but in a society that already has guns and that is gun crazy the only best way of defending yourself in an imminent situation is with a gun that you also possess yourself, know how to use safely and correctly. 

    My reply ......Yes well yous have your gun rights but yous pay a huge price for them in gun deaths and accidents and that’s never going to change .....

    Firstly, I'm not American btw but It does make sense to me that the best way to defend against a gun is if you have a gun yourself. It also makes sense to have this in a country where firearm use isn't going away any time soon. It also makes sense to have this in a country where you already have load of gun nuts that could go on a rampage any minute. While it's not the nirvana solution it probably is the only viable option for the time being.




    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullsh*t requires no such conviction…”
    ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science




  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    edited June 19
    @ZeusAres42



    I am not discussing gun violence in general. The only argument I am making is that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a good that knows how to use it, is trained and responsible. Hence, why in countries such as the UK where I'm from you have an armed response team in cases of armed situations. You cannot reasonably expect the police to tackle an armed assailent unarmed. 


    My reply ......


    That’s fine. That’s assuming everyone is trained and responsible that’s a big ask isn’t it? 

    Also you will be taking that gun home and you’re now responsible for others in your home not having access to that gun and accidental gun deaths and accidents in the home.

    I keep mentioning house alarms and no one pays any attention the last answer by another was “ what if it doesn’t work” .

    One of the biggest deterrents to a burglar is a house alarm it’s your job to switch it on at night I’m doing so for 20 years and never once forgotten 



    You say .....Can you actually elaborate as to why it is weak at all assuming you still do? Also, what would you say would be a better solution in an imminent situation? 


    My reply .....It’s weak because it’s a total overreaction to a perceived threat  .........there has been roughly 50 to 60 gun deathsa year in England and Wales, which have a population of 56 million.Feb 18, 2018.......


    I got these stats online , now if one is to further this argument and enter the Into the equation home burglaries regarding guns the figures are minuscule , do you really think a gun is necessary for such a nearly impossible risk of gun death?


    You say .......

    Assuming this particular scenario if the criminal is a professional that knows what they're doing the house alarm is going to be much of a deterrent, and they will most likely commit their crime way before the police arrive. 


    My reply .....But modern house alarms an very effective and why would a professional target an ordinary Joe?


    Surely a professional would know inside out what you have exactly in your house and it’s value,  do you honestly think a pro would disarm and rob a house carrying a gun to get maybe a tv an I pad and assorted wallets and purses?


    You say .....

    I wouldn't know if Americans are getting held up and threatened on a daily basis in the streets. 


    My reply .....OK apply to to your country then?


    You say .....


    Firstly, I'm not American btw but It does make sense to me that the best way to defend against a gun is if you have a gun yourself. It also makes sense to have this in a country where firearm use isn't going away any time soon. It also makes sense to have this in a country where you already have load of gun nuts that could go on a rampage any minute. While it's not the nirvana solution it probably is the only viable option for the time being. 


    My reply .......Well if that’s the way you want your society there will be consequences consistent I would imagine with the American model , thankfully my country is Anti a position I would wish to hold as long as I’m around 


  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @all4actt

    Some stats for you .......
    • than 393 million guns in circulation in the United States — approximately 120.5 guns for every 100 people.
    • 1.7 million children live with unlocked, loaded guns- 1 out of 3 homes with kids have guns.
    • In 2015, 2,824 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,723 were injured.
    • An emergency department visit for non-fatal assault injury places a youth at 40 percent higher risk for subsequent firearm injury.
    • Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their homeas those in the control group.
    • Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
    • People who report “firearm access” are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.
    • Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.
    • Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
    • States implementing universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods prior to the purchase of a firearm show lower rates of suicides than states without this legislation. To read more about suicide and firearms, click here.
    • In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children were higher than in states with less availability.
    • The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child access to firearms — either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.
    • Studies have shown that states with Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.
    • Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships. Read more about the impact of child exposure to domestic violence.
  • all4acttall4actt 71 Pts
    Dee

    I am aware of a lot of the statistics and the irresponsibility of some gun owners.

    I don't diagree with having common since regulating laws.

    I think they should run background checks through finger printing ran through a nationwide data base.

    I don't disagree with the laws that temporarily remove guns from their owners when a psycologist, psychiatrist, or family member reports that they are a danger to themselves or others.

    I believe there should be laws (for those with no practical since of thier own) that require guns to be locked up when there are children in the home.

    I think that a person who is deemed dangerous by a psychiatrists  or a psychologist should have the ability to tempotarily red flag someone on the national data base.  I believe that if this measure is taken that a person should have the right to contest it.

    It also wouldn't hurt to require a person to pass a gun saftey class before purchase.

    With all that I agree that sometimes it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad one.
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @all4actt

    If you want your guns there is a price to pay and a very costly one , but if your society is that dangerous to live in then I guess you’re making a wise choice 
    George_Horse
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    For me, this is the bottom line; there are many people in society who are criminally-minded, irresponsible, careless, stupid, substance abusers, mentally ill, suicidal or otherwise unfit to keep and bear arms. The fact that they are unfit to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights cannot be used as an excuse to deprive me of mine. In fact, their unfitness actually underscores my need for that right, as a society of disarmed law-abiding citizens in a country full of criminals and mentally defective people is really a society of victims-in-waiting.   
    ZeusAres42
  • Dee said:
    I cannot talk for the American experience but in my country citizens including out regular police force do not carry guns, the horrifying stats regarding gun deaths and accidents in America are truly shocking.

    The scenario just posted is a typical pro gun argument which is weak to say the least , why not invest in a decent house 
    alarm instead we all have them over here?

    I find it truly horrifying that Americans actually need armed guards at schools and are having a debate about arming schoolteachers what an appalling environment to bring up children.

    My country is rated 4th most peaceful in the world America has a dreadful rating of 121st place. I often wonder if a country like mine introduced guns into society for all citizens how would benefit our society? Would death and accident rates go up or down?

    Guns in society are to me regressive and divisive and not something I would want in any environment I wish to live in  

      
    If you believe guns are bad, then how should people protect themselves when a threat is inside your home? Armed with something else besides a firearm? What will you do when the police are not fast enough to respond? 
    Zombieguy1987
    "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

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    edited June 25
    @George_Horse

    You say ......If you believe guns are bad, then how should people protect themselves when a threat is inside your home?

    My reply ......Every American who debates this topic always mentions this , do Americans not have house alarms? I do and it’s never once failed. Also I’m curious do burglars in the U S risk a hefty prison term by disarming and breaking into the ordinary Joes home for a T V , laptop and maybe a wallet or purse?

    You say .......Armed with something else besides a firearm? What will you do when the police are not fast enough to respond? 

    My reply .....I honestly feel for Americans if they are this insecure in their own homes that they need to be tooled up.

    I live in a society where we or the  police force do not carry guns we are rated 4th  most peaceful country in the world , the U S is rated a disgraceful 121 first place , so do you think more guns or less guns would make your society more peaceful?
    CYDdhartaGeorge_Horse
  • Dee said:
    @George_Horse

    You say .......Armed with something else besides a firearm? What will you do when the police are not fast enough to respond? 

    My reply .....I honestly feel for Americans if they are this insecure in their own homes that they need to be tooled up.
    Tooled up? Lol. Its not the case of being ill or paranoid, but a sense of safety. You don't live here so you wouldn't have ANY idea of what it would be like. Getting rid of firearms won't help, and since you continue to boast of how "peaceful" your country is, perhaps you may be inclined to name where you live so I can do research into the crime statistics of your country. I own over five firearms, I'm not crazy. I have a loving family and friends, and I most certainly do not plan on committing mass murder. Perhaps your way of thinking is flawed and you do not know the importance of self-defense. 
    "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

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @George_Horse

    You say.....Tooled up? 


    My reply ......Well owning 5 guns is tooled up wouldn’t you say? Lol 


    You say .......Its not the case of being ill or paranoid, but a sense of safety. 


    My reply .....Yes you live in a very unsafe society where in your own home you need 5 guns for protection if this is not the case you are indeed paranoid 


    You say ....You don't live here so you wouldn't have ANY idea of what it would be like. 


    My reply ......But I did live there and I do know what it’s like 


    You say .....Getting rid of firearms won't help, 


    My reply ....Of course how could no guns in a society be of any help 


    You say ....and since you continue to boast of how "peaceful" your country is, perhaps you may be inclined to name where you live so I can do research into the crime statistics of your country. 


    My reply ....I’m not boasting it’s a statement of fact , what has a gun free society like mine got to do with a debate regarding guns?


    You say .....I own over five firearms, I'm not crazy. I have a loving family and friends, and I most certainly do not plan on committing mass murder. Perhaps your way of thinking is flawed and you do not know the importance of self-defense. 


    My reply ......I never said you were crazy or a bad family man and I never said you were planning mass murder. 


    My thinking is the opposite of flawed as I don’t live in a society where I need 5 guns  just to feel safe , I can defend myself if needed , maybe you should plan a move to one of the 120 safer countries to live in where you will not need your 5 guns to feel safe 

    CYDdharta
  • @Dee ; I own five guns because they are some of my favorites. Would you like to know the names of them? Also, I live around the Las Vegas area, in a safer neighborhood, so it isn't too bad, but of course that doesn't mean that nothing can't happen. On your last note of you being able to "defend" yourself. I find that laughable.  :joy: Not everyone is knowledged in hand-to-hand combat, and you never know what your opponent (intruder) may have on him that is capable of causing harm (sharp/blunt objects, knives/long bladed melee weapons) 
    Zombieguy1987
    "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

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    edited June 27
    @George_Horse

    You say ..... I find that laughable.   Not everyone is knowledged in hand-to-hand combat, and you never know what your opponent (intruder) may have on him that is capable of causing harm (sharp/blunt objects, knives/long bladed melee weapons)

    My reply .....Well you would the thoughts of a society where one can go about without being attacked is normal here you find it “laughable”.

    So the average American also has to be wary of being attacked by thugs brandishing Sharp/blunt objects knives,/long bladed melee weapons .....you need to move to a more peaceful country why not South Africa? It rates higher than the U S in world peace tables
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    I'd like to point out just a couple of quick and relevant points concerning gun violence and gun control in America.

    First, if you discount the gun violence that occurs in our inner cities and amongst gang members, the United States doesn't have much of a problem with gun violence or a murder rate that exceeds most of the rest of the world. Second, if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. Instead, the places with the strictest gun control laws are ironically the most dangerous places in the country.

    Our problem is not guns. Our problem is dangerous people. Addressing the root causes of dangerous people and the potential solutions to the menace they present is a lot more complicated than focusing on guns, especially for Democrats. The people committing the overwhelming majority of gun crimes in America are constituents in overwhelmingly Democrat jurisdictions and the local governments dealing with the issue have been playing 'catch and release' with these people for decades. Until we get serious dealing with violent criminals, the problem of gun violence in America isn't going anywhere. Turning law-abiding citizens into criminals by criminalizing their guns will only make matters worse.  
  • TKDBTKDB 292 Pts
    edited June 28

    @ZeusAres42


    @CYDdharta



    "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."


    What if there isn't another citizen, with a gun to stop a criminal, or an offender, with a gun?

    Does that maybe, make those victims irrelevant in regards to your pro gun question?

    Does that make the Bill of Rights an irrelevant document, in the face of the Second Amendment itself? 

    Because there are more guns, in this country then there are innocent victims, and the police?

    393 million guns, verses 325 million U.S. citizens, and 900,000 Police Officers?

    Isn't a gun violence committed crime, by a first time offender, an offender, or criminal in general, are cruel and unusual punishments, towards their innocent victim, or victims?

    Where is the fair and equal moment, in your unequal and unfair question? 

    The United States has a gun problem, and the serial killers, sociopaths, criminals, offenders, first time offenders, and those illegal immigrants, or aliens, who used a gun to kill their innocent victims with, don't care about the United States, having a gun problem.

    But do you know how to fix the gun problem in the United States?

    (You can't throw the law at them, because people kill people with guns every day.)

    Because those innocent babies, toddlers, kids, children, and families, made victims of themselves because they weren't armed with a gun like those offenders had, to shoot those offenders with, prior to being murdered by those same offenders right?

    You throw the Second Amendment at those same offenders, and you let the Second Amendment deal with those murdered innocent lives, right? 

    Treat the Second Amendment as if it were it's own Police Officer, DA, and Judge, and let the Second Amendment, do it's lawful duty, right pro gun extremists crowd?

    Right, NRA? 
    AlofRI
  • @Sharky

    Regardless of the truth of the OP statement, this statement of yours "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. " is wrong and probably fallacious...  

    You deliberately or not, ignore the fact that there is no closed frontier/customs/borders between cities and states within the US...  Those laws in Chicago, NY, etc, are in large part indeed useless because of that fact (no closed borders), not because they are in themselves inefficient... 

    Just sayin...
    AlofRI
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1204 Pts
    @Sharky

    Regardless of the truth of the OP statement, this statement of yours "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. " is wrong and probably fallacious...  

    You deliberately or not, ignore the fact that there is no closed frontier/customs/borders between cities and states within the US...  Those laws in Chicago, NY, etc, are in large part indeed useless because of that fact (no closed borders), not because they are in themselves inefficient... 

    Just sayin...

    So what you're saying is that people who want guns will get them regardless of the law.  It sounds like you're more in agreement with @Sharky than disagreement.
  • @CYDdharta

    I said: Regardless of the truth of the OP statement... So I do acknowledge the truth of the OP... 

    What I am saying is that those gun laws in those places (Chicago, etc) are useless because of the open borders between cities/states, not because they are inefficient in themselves... To be efficient, they require closed borders with monitored points of entry...

    This should be very easy to understand to most people (but this is Debate Island so I don't assume this anymore), but just change "guns" for "immigrants" for example, imagine anti-immigrant laws in a place with open borders, the reason why immigration would still be a problem is not because of the anti-immigration laws, the problem would be that there's no closed borders with monitored points of entry... That is what I'm saying...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1204 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I said: Regardless of the truth of the OP statement... So I do acknowledge the truth of the OP... 

    What I am saying is that those gun laws in those places (Chicago, etc) are useless because of the open borders between cities/states, not because they are inefficient in themselves... To be efficient, they require closed borders with monitored points of entry...

    This should be very easy to understand to most people (but this is Debate Island so I don't assume this anymore), but just change "guns" for "immigrants" for example, imagine anti-immigrant laws in a place with open borders, the reason why immigration would still be a problem is not because of the anti-immigration laws, the problem would be that there's no closed borders with monitored points of entry... That is what I'm saying...

    How is that any different than what I just said?
  • @CYDdharta ;

    *sigh*... Let's break this down...

    I only addressed Sharky's fallacious assertion that "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. "

    I addressed nothing else... 

    Certainly didn't say that people who want guns will get them regardless of the law... It's a useless truism that says nothing of substance...
    • People who really want to kill, will kill, regardless of the law...
    • People who really want to rob, will rob, regardless of the law...
    • Rapists will rape, regardless of the law...
    All laws can be broken, well thanks captain obvious... "Then why do we have laws at all" would usually follow... This leads us nowhere and doesn't even relate to the point I was making... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1204 Pts
    @CYDdharta ;

    *sigh*... Let's break this down...

    I only addressed Sharky's fallacious assertion that "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. "

    I addressed nothing else... 

    Certainly didn't say that people who want guns will get them regardless of the law... It's a useless truism that says nothing of substance...
    • People who really want to kill, will kill, regardless of the law...
    • People who really want to rob, will rob, regardless of the law...
    • Rapists will rape, regardless of the law...
    All laws can be broken, well thanks captain obvious... "Then why do we have laws at all" would usually follow... This leads us nowhere and doesn't even relate to the point I was making... 

    I must apologize, I really thought you were trying to add something pertinent to the discussion.  Please forgive the misunderstanding.  Criminals are going to commit crimes is, no doubt, a truism, but at least its relevant to the topic at hand.  As you have pointed out, there will always be people with the means and the motive to kill other people.  There is no way to stop it.  The best that can be done is to have some means to defend against it, which is the thread topic.  Your point, that people are going to move things from one place to another is another truism, but one that's utterly useless.  Capt'n Obvious, indeed.  At least you're willing to admit walls deter crime, a lot of people have argued against that, but it's an irrelevant point since there are no walled cities or walled states.  We can't even get walls put up on our national borders.  So what are you trying to say??  That we can get gun control to work in American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc., but only by building walls around them??  Since that's never going to happen what's your point?

    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    OK, so are you arguing against more gun laws because they don't work anyway and they tend to criminalize law-abiding citizens? Or are you advocating for strict, nationwide gun laws (universal registration and confiscation) but only if they are  combined with strict border enforcement, including walls, aerial surveillance and greatly enhanced port security? It sounds like it has to be one or the other. Either way, you alienate large segments of the American public. In one case, you blatantly violate the US Constitution. 
  • AlofRIAlofRI 308 Pts
    Probably the SECOND best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. The FIRST best way is to prevent as many bad guys from GETTING guns as is humanly possible. That will save the lives of a lot of good guys with guns that get in the way of a bad guy with a gun before they could be stopped by a good guy. 

    The U.S. is the biggest circular firing squad on Earth 'cause the Second Amendment was written when it took 3 minutes to reload a highly inaccurate weapon. Enjoy "Independence Day", I hope you all survive.
    CYDdhartaGeorge_Horse
  • Sharky said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    OK, so are you arguing against more gun laws because they don't work anyway and they tend to criminalize law-abiding citizens? Or are you advocating for strict, nationwide gun laws (universal registration and confiscation) but only if they are  combined with strict border enforcement, including walls, aerial surveillance and greatly enhanced port security? It sounds like it has to be one or the other. Either way, you alienate large segments of the American public. In one case, you blatantly violate the US Constitution. 
    Again, given that all laws can be broken, I'm only arguing against the validity of this assertion... : "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence, American cities like Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc. would be amongst the safest places in the country. "

    That is a fallacious statement, that's all I am saying... I'm not advocating for more or less gun laws here... 
    ZeusAres42CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I disagree that my statement is fallacious. It is premised with "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence...". That's a big "if".

    The American left has contended for decades that gun control, meaning more restrictions on gun ownership, possession and the right to carry, is the exclusive route to a more peaceful and serene society. They call this "common sense gun laws". In jurisdictions run by Democrats for decades, they have managed to pass these laws in violation of the Constitution. The result, ironically, is that those jurisdictions suffer from some of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. The fact that draconian gun control laws have not worked where they've been passed makes my statement one of  fact, not fallacy.

    You contend that closed borders/frontiers and more monitoring and control over points of entry would change the equation, again ignoring the fact that criminals don't care about the laws and rules you wish and hope would work. This is all about what does and does not work and, as usual, the Democrats' "solution" to the problem has been demonstrated NOT to work. If it's so obvious that passing laws is futile because of the lawless nature of the criminal class, then why is there this constant, never-ending obsession with passing more useless gun control laws?

    My statement, because of the "if" that begins it, is 100% factual. Our problem is not guns, its criminals. 

     I'm not advocating for more or less gun laws here... 
    OK. Do you agree with the debate title, "The Best Way to Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun is a Good Guy With a Gun"? I'm not sure you ever gave a specific opinion on that. 

    George_Horse
  • Dee said:
    So the average American also has to be wary of being attacked by thugs brandishing Sharp/blunt objects knives,/long bladed melee weapons .....you need to move to a more peaceful country why not South Africa? It rates higher than the U S in world peace tables
    They're killing white farmers over there. No thanks. America is 100x better.
    "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

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • @ZeusAres42

    Here’s my stance on this: 

    If there were people at an outdoor event, and all of the good people had guns, and one bad person had a gun, and started shooting, and then everyone else started shooting at who they thought it was, everyone would get hurt. 
  • Sharky said:
    @Plaffelvohfen

    I disagree that my statement is fallacious. It is premised with "if gun control worked or was even remotely an answer to the problem of gun violence...". That's a big "if".

    The American left has contended for decades that gun control, meaning more restrictions on gun ownership, possession and the right to carry, is the exclusive route to a more peaceful and serene society. They call this "common sense gun laws". In jurisdictions run by Democrats for decades, they have managed to pass these laws in violation of the Constitution. The result, ironically, is that those jurisdictions suffer from some of the highest rates of violent crime in the country. The fact that draconian gun control laws have not worked where they've been passed makes my statement one of  fact, not fallacy.

    You contend that closed borders/frontiers and more monitoring and control over points of entry would change the equation, again ignoring the fact that criminals don't care about the laws and rules you wish and hope would work. This is all about what does and does not work and, as usual, the Democrats' "solution" to the problem has been demonstrated NOT to work. If it's so obvious that passing laws is futile because of the lawless nature of the criminal class, then why is there this constant, never-ending obsession with passing more useless gun control laws?

    My statement, because of the "if" that begins it, is 100% factual. Our problem is not guns, its criminals. 

     I'm not advocating for more or less gun laws here... 
    OK. Do you agree with the debate title, "The Best Way to Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun is a Good Guy With a Gun"? I'm not sure you ever gave a specific opinion on that. 

    I did begin with "Regardless of the truth of the OP statement" , so I do agree...

    The fallacy is in asserting that a city level or even state level solution (laws) could (your IF) solve a national problem... Listing cities/sates with gun laws in regards to a national problem, is fallacious... It's a categorical error thus invalid... 
    CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @George_Horse

    You say .......They're killing white farmers over there. No thanks. America is 100x better.

    My reply ......Yet it’s rated as low as the U S regards peaceful societies
    CYDdhartaGeorge_Horse
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    The fallacy is in asserting that a city level or even state level solution (laws) could (your IF) solve a national problem... Listing cities/sates with gun laws in regards to a national problem, is fallacious... It's a categorical error thus invalid... 
    Are you contending that no state or local governments should bother passing laws to address "national" problems because we don't have any controls over our state and municipal borders? I have some disconcerting news to report: we don't have control over our NATIONAL borders, either. If we did, we wouldn't have "11-22 million" illegal immigrants residing in our country. We don't even know how many there are (a 100% margin of error!), let alone who they are. 

    Since we don't control our borders and have an entire political party that actively thwarts any efforts to do so, I have to assume that, because you consider border control the key to the enforcement of gun laws, you consider all efforts to pass nationwide gun control laws to be a pointless waste of time. Am I wrong? If so, how?  

     


  • @Sharky

    I'm not contending anything regarding more or less gun laws... I don't give a damn about it, make it mandatory to carry lots of guns and ammo, shoot yourselves up with glee, or not, I honestly don't care...

    What I'm saying though is that this "argument" you used is fallacious and invalid, there are other valid argument for or against gun laws, use those, but this one is not one of them...

    The only gun laws that have any chance of working would have to be passed at the federal level, individual state laws as solutions to national problems are by definition dysfunctional and cannot solve anything... So pointing to failed State laws is fallacious (Categorical mistake). This is so basic and obvious, I'm disconcerted by the fact that some can't grasp this... 

    I'm not addressing the implied constitutional problems mind you (Federal vs State authority/sovereignty), that's another matter entirely... 
    CYDdharta
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    @Sharky

    "The only gun laws that have any chance of working would have to be passed at the federal level"

    Fair enough. I'd be very interested to hear a concise version of a federal gun law that you think might work better than the various state laws that already exist. Keep in mind the Constitutional issues and the costs associated with effective enforcement. 

  • @Sharky

    TBH, I think the US has a dysfunctional structure, which makes you unable to deal with those issues... In the sense that it's often difficult to picture the US as a "country" rather than a "union of independent states".. From the outside, it's seems like you haven't totally made up your minds about this, are you a country or a union of wannabe-countries? I have the same problem with my own country Canada, the province system is far from ideal in my opinion, but in Canada the federal level has more overseeing powers over more topics and individual provinces legislative powers are more limited than States in the US so it's a bit more manageable, but I would do away with those (Provinces) altogether...

    As for a concise federal gun law that could work, until you address the federal vs state problem, I can't think of any that wouldn't be problematic on some levels... Trying to come up with a comprehensive and efficient gun law at the federal level, without touching the Constitution...  I don't know that it can be done honestly...

    It's similar to cannabis laws, since Colorado legalized recreational cannabis, officials say more pot is illegally coming through the border of states like Nebraska and Oklahoma... Well duh, those who are surprised need help... Some of those neighboring states are trying to have Colorado's law declared unconstitutional, good luck with that... This problem too won't and cannot be solved until you update your Constitution to address these issues... 

    But obviously, this won't happen anytime soon...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Dee said:
    @George_Horse

    You say .......They're killing white farmers over there. No thanks. America is 100x better.

    My reply ......Yet it’s rated as low as the U S regards peaceful societies

    Then maybe you should go LIVE over there and tell me which is better for you, since you're such a smartass. One is better than the other, clean your eyes and admit it instead of being in denial. 
    "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

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    @George_Horse

    You say ......
    Then maybe you should go  LIVE over there and tell me which is better for you, since you're such a 

    My reply .....But I’m not the one living in one of the least peaceful  societies in the world you are ....remember 121 st place rating 

    You say ......One is better than the other, clean your eyes and admit it instead of being in denial. 

    My reply .....You’re probably right South Africans don’t need guns for protection in their own homes, yes you’re spot on U S is far more dangerous 
  • SharkySharky 99 Pts
    @Dee

    You mentioned that you did once live in the United States. Would you mind saying where it was that you lived? This really is not a very dangerous country outside of the cities where the vast majority of violent crimes are committed. Did you live in one of those cities? 
  • DeeDee 828 Pts
    edited July 23
    @Sharky

    I lived in L A ( Santa Monica ) and loved it. Regards guns there are 70,000 steady gun accidents a year in the U S do you not see this as a problem?

    I love the U S but I’m a realist your country rates a low 121st place in world peace rankings do you not see this as a problem ?

    Approximately 1.4 million people have died from firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. That’s not counting up to now , that’s actually one third the population of my county do you not think that scary?

  • @Plaffelvohfen Meaning I question the hypocrisy of right to lifers who kill with guns, or otherwise. Either one values human life, or one does not.
    This is an ad hominem fallacy. The hypocrisy of the person holding this view has no bearing on whether the view is correct. A hypocrite can still be stating facts. Hence you brought up something irrelevant and is a fallacy, specifically an ad hominem since you're attacking the character of people who potentially hold this view. You're also assuming they claim to be pro-life. No one stated they are pro-life here.  In that respect, it could be argued to be two fallacies rolled up into one: ad hominem and a strawman argument since no one at all stated they are pro-life here.
    Plaffelvohfencalebsica
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 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