keeping a gun in your home well not make you safer - 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.


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!

keeping a gun in your home well not make you safer
in Politics

By billbatardbillbatard 132 Pts
Statistics indicate that a gun in the home will not protect you , and that strict gun laws will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death  https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study
jagritvatsPlaffelvohfencheesycheeseZombieguy1987
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • "About half of gun accident fatalities happen to people under 25"???  Not only does that include gang members, it could also include service members killed in action.

    According to the CDC about 80% of the firearm injuries are related to violent crime, not accidents or self harm. Overwhelmingly 17, 18, and 19 year olds, overwhelmingly injuries related to violent crime, and overwhelmingly black unfortunately is related to gangs, particularly drug gangs. Requiring your average family to lock up their guns or to scare them into not owning them, isn’t going to stop incidents involving violent crime or drug gangs. Indeed, disarming people will make this problem worse.
    https://crimeresearch.org/2014/01/abc-news-extremely-misleading-report-on-dangers-of-guns-in-homes/

    JAC
  • 대왕광개토대왕광개토 201 Pts
    edited October 10
    @billbatard I don't think that strict gun law will effectively prevent the black market from supplying guns to people.
    JAC
  • Try and tell the following people that not having a gun in their home did not make them safe.

    Actual 911 call by someone with a gun trying to get the police there while hiding in a closet in attempt to not have to shoot 
    This whole incident took 12min 34 seconds.  Obviously the police did not have the time to protect him.

    Here is another in which the woman was begging for police help but they were not able to get to her in time.  
    If those two are not enough for you check youtube for more instances where gun owners are forced to use their guns b/c law enforcement is not able to get there in time.  Just google self defence shooting while on the phone with 911.
    JACZombieguy1987
  • This is rather a generic statement. There are all kinds of varying aspects with regard to what counts as the safety of an individual within their home; it's just not as simple as "if you got a gun in your home your safe" or "if you got a gun in your home you're not safe."

    I haven't really looked in depth at these statistics yet but I am willing to bet they're based on flawed methodology.
    SkepticalOneDylanZombieguy1987

    “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




  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    edited October 12
    Statistics are not one blob of information to be interpreted however the author desires. Statistics are very nuanced and feature countless internal correlations. 

    It may be true that people are more likely to die from their own gun, than from someone else's gun, but this is a meaningless statement, as it does not take into account the details. A lot of gun deaths are suicide, and that obviously does not apply to the majority of the population, nor is it caused by guns (a person wanting to commit suicide may do so in many different ways, and not having a gun would not prevent it from happening). Some other gun deaths are caused by negligence when storing firearms or using them for target practice, which, again, does not apply to the more responsible individuals. Finally, different areas have different gun death rates, and it is clear that having a gun at home in suburban Detroit puts you in more danger, than having no gun at home in Beverly Hills - only it has to do not with guns, but with criminal situations in these areas.

    The actual question people must be interested is this: "If I buy a gun tomorrow and keep it at my home, will I be safer?" And my guess is that, for the overwhelming majority of people, the answer is "yes".

    I think statistics should be taught at schools. We would not have so many fallacious interpretations of known facts circulating around if that was the case. Statistics, finances and logic are the 3 most overlooked areas of modern education, and they happen also to be some of the most useful ones in the modern world.
    ZeusAres42JACZombieguy1987
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 685 Pts
    edited October 12
    MayCaesar said:
    The actual question people must be interested is this: "If I buy a gun tomorrow and keep it at my home, will I be safer?" And my guess is that, for the overwhelming majority of people, the answer is "yes".
    What will make you even safer is if you're a responsible gun owner that takes regular training course, and someone that has been used to dealing with adverse situations in the past, understanding the difference between certain mental states such apathy and paranoia, etc. In addition to that, living in a quiet environment will also ensure you're safety even more.

    I think statistics should be taught at schools. We would not have so many fallacious interpretations of known facts circulating around if that was the case. Statistics, finances and logic are the 3 most overlooked areas of modern education, and they happen also to be some of the most useful ones in the modern world.

    I have to say that I am somewhat in agreement with this too. Some people think that if something is statistical it must be gospel based purely on the bases that it is statistical without knowing anything about variables, methods, selection biases, misinterpretation, misrepresentation etc.


    MayCaesarPlaffelvohfenZombieguy1987

    “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




  • IzaIza 2 Pts
    Agreed.

    Guns alone won't make a home safe.  What makes you safer is  being proactive doing things such as taking preventative measures (living in safe neighborhoods, security systems, etc). Guns are only  reactive a tactic and that reaction only works if the threatening  person is less skilled, witty, etc than you are. Many people who have a gun may technically know how to use it but may forget that it's very important to not just know the technical stuff but to also know how to handle crisis situations and how to make rational decisions while your brain and body is in survival mode. 
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited October 13
    There are more guns than citizens in the United States.

    Which means, that whether or not a citizen owns a gun, the criminals, offenders, who own illegal guns, have had the advantage of their victims for year's.

    Those legal gun owners, who became first time offenders, after committing their gun violence crimes, they to had an advantage over their victims.

    Because of how the Second Amendment, is currently written.

    Gun safety in the U.S. should begin with an amended Second Amendment, that should have a 1000% Accountability Measure, written within its very language.

    And it should, spell out explicitly, from it's very own language, that no U.S. citizen, has a Right to bear any "illegal arms," and that they, as well, do not have the Right to "illegally kill" anyone with their "illegal arms."

    That would be the Best Example of Gun Safety, that I can think of.

    1000% Accountability for every legal, and illegal gun, that is in the U.S., as we speak. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @iza
    Yes, Only guns in you home will make me safer. Any enemy must destroy both your armory and the Armed services armory during an attack. Therefore, by the union made by 2nd Amendment of basic principle and legal precedent we are all made safer. Its okay this right is not a tax .So, you are at liberty to welch on only your burden of gun as a weight to carry in the cost of money, your safety however decreases by the lack of responsibility to share all burdens of lethal force as a united state in the United States of America.

    @TKDB
    A couple things.
    1. Hiring some-one to use lethal force on your behalf is illegal and can be proven as a crime when enforcing law.  
    2. As a non-commissioned officer holding a weight of lethal force to preserve American United State Constitution there is a common defense given to all American United State officers. 
    3.A American Constitutional Amendment should be made on a union created between liberty and freedom. The 2nd Amendment union set on lethal force and peaceful assembly are in no need of infringement. 
    4. A gun not legal by law does not mean a united state exists that all death created by use of the illegal gun was not legal use of lethal force.

  • @대왕광개토 guns would become expensive on the black market. Upper middle class to rich people aren't exactly the ones committing mass shootings or driving gun death statistics. With legal guns laws that prevent someone from purchasing a guy have little effect. Straw purchasers are way more common to get guns into the hands of criminals than the black market is. With legal guns the black market has to compete with legal gun shops. 

    I couldn't care less about the legality of guns. It they become illegal I will give them up. While they are legal I will happily own and carry. The "black market" argument is just as stupid as the "assault rifle" ban. Making guns illegal massively impacts the market value of guns. The current black market for guns is absolutely no reflection on the black market for guns in a society where they are illegal. Assault rifle bans are pointless as 95%+ gun death are caused by gun violence. 

    Tell me what the black market for guns in Germany, England, and Australia are, and how their deaths by gun violence even come close to America's. 

    There are plenty of arguments for keeping guns legal. The black market is not one of them. Refine your talking points
  • VaulkVaulk 656 Pts
    edited October 13
    I think the overlooked bottom line here is that, while gun ownership is the topic of the debate, this all boils down to "Should you have the right to defend yourself efficiently"?  

    Note that I'm not saying that having a gun in your home equals safety, I'm merely stating as a fact that, if you truly have the right to defend yourself in your home, you have to equalize yourself against the most common and most dangerous threat to you in your home.

    Imagine for a moment the fire extinguisher classifications.  Different extinguishers handle different fires.  There's classes for regular combustables, flammable liquids, electric fires and flammable metals.  

    So the DOJ reports that over one millions homes are robbed each year (Residents were present in the home when it happened) and in 47% of those one million robberies...a gun was used by the Robber during the crime.  So that's 470,000 Robberies where the criminal brought a gun with him.  So JUST under half of all robberies in the home involve a gun, another 7.8% used knives or some sort of cutting device.  This is a total of 54.7% of all robberies committed with a weapon of some sort.

    Let's go back to the fire extinguisher.  The U.S. Fire Department services report that the vast majority (Over 90%) of all fires in the home are grease fires originating in the kitchen.  Knowing this irrefutable fact, would you feel safe keeping a fire extinguisher in your home that only put out combustible fires?  Of course you wouldn't, any responsible person would know that you must be readily equipped to deal with dangers in the home and your equipment must be equalized to handle the most common and the most extreme threats.  

    So, do humans deserve the right to protect themselves with the most effective equipment available?  I think so.  Does that mean that all people with guns in the home will be able to save themselves?  No, but just because some people don't live through a dangerous situation...that doesn't mean you should just remove their fire extinguishers.  People deserve the chance to protect themselves.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @WordsMatter

    In countries with thriving black gun markets, especially such countries as Russia, South Africa or India, guns are almost free on the black market. You can easily buy an AK-74 in those countries for 50 bucks, and that will be a much more effective weapon than a pistol you can buy on the legal market in the US for $1,000.
    Black market always features lower prices than the legal market, because, in the lack of regulations, there is an actual competition there, even if it mostly occurs between criminal groups. As such, ironically, if the guns are to be outlawed in the US, then they will move to the black market instead and will be even easier to purchase than nowadays.

    The reason it is not happening in Germany, England or Australia, where guns are severely restricted, is the same reason it is not happening in Finland, Switzerland or Israel, where guns are almost as easy to purchase as in the US: different culture, different criminal situation, different preferences. It has nothing to do with the actual gun laws. In Japan guns are nearly impossible to purchase, but even if that was not the case, do you think many people would buy them? No, because there is no demand for guns in that culture, and violent crime in Japan is nearly non-existent.

    People always talk about policies alone in these matters and their results, forgetting that every policy takes place only in the cultural and societal context. The same policy may have different outcomes in different cultures, as we can see in the examples I mentioned above.
    대왕광개토DylanJACZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited October 14
    @Vaulk

    "I think the overlooked bottom line here is that, while gun ownership is the topic of the debate, this all boils down to "Should you have the right to defend yourself efficiently?"

    Stephen Paddock, had more than enough guns to defend himself efficiently, then he used his guns to kill 59 people, including himself.

    He took his right to defend himself, and changed the lives of his victims and Las Vegas forever.

    He and the other Mass Shooters, have changed the way that millions of U.S. citizens, now view the Second Amendment, and it's fragily written word's.

    393 million guns, illegal, and legal in the U.S., shows how fixated some of the legal and the illegal gun owners, view the Second Amendment, through their separate views?

    One of these days, maybe a group of U.S. citizens, will get together, and hold the NRA, and every individual lawmaker, who has balked at addressing the fragiity of the Second Amendment, as its currently written?

    And maybe rightfully, hold the NRA, and those individual lawmakers who have refused to address the Second Amendment as it's currently written, as being, in contempt of "violating the safety of the Public, by not Representing the safety for the Public," overall, instead of verbally reiterating over and over again, about the Second Amendment, and the very DNA of its language, and thats all that gets talked about?

    A mass shooting happens, and all that gets verbally glossed is, the "Second Amendment, says that a citizen, has the right to bear arm's?"

    BUT, what the Second Amendment, fails to say; Is that a citizen, has the right to bear arms against other citizens, and kill them with their legal arms? 

    So the Second Amendment, as its written, 

    ("keeping a gun in your home well not make you safer.")


    fails to make the rest of country, who doesn't want to own a gun, or have a gun at home, safer, because of how the Second Amendment, is fragily written. 





    JACZombieguy1987
  • @대왕광개토 guns would become expensive on the black market. Upper middle class to rich people aren't exactly the ones committing mass shootings or driving gun death statistics. With legal guns laws that prevent someone from purchasing a guy have little effect. Straw purchasers are way more common to get guns into the hands of criminals than the black market is. With legal guns the black market has to compete with legal gun shops. 

    I couldn't care less about the legality of guns. It they become illegal I will give them up. While they are legal I will happily own and carry. The "black market" argument is just as stupid as the "assault rifle" ban. Making guns illegal massively impacts the market value of guns. The current black market for guns is absolutely no reflection on the black market for guns in a society where they are illegal. Assault rifle bans are pointless as 95%+ gun death are caused by gun violence. 

    Tell me what the black market for guns in Germany, England, and Australia are, and how their deaths by gun violence even come close to America's. 

    There are plenty of arguments for keeping guns legal. The black market is not one of them. Refine your talking points

    Australia??  Australians have more guns now than before the ban.


    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    edited October 14
    @CYDdharta

    That is with regards to the absolute numbers. In terms of guns per capita, as the article mentions, the rate dropped by 23%.

    I find this to me a more enlightening figure:



    The harsh regulations were introduced in 1996, and, as we can see, the gun violence continued steadily decreasing at roughly the same rate as it was before 1996, overall repeating the pattern found in the US and Canada, where similarly harsh regulations were not introduced.

    Countless research papers show that there is no obvious correlation between the strictness of gun laws and gun violence, but there is a strong correlation between gun violence and other types of violence, which indicates that the problem is cultural, not legal. Something that people have been pointing out for decades already, yet the widespread acknowledgement of the scientific fact is yet to occur.

    Here is an earlier figure for skeptics, just in case:


    JACZombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited October 14
    @Vaulk

    @CYDdharta

    @MayCaesar

    A fascinating piece of Journalism.

    https://www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/mgm-las-vegas-shooting-settlement.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15710151981493&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/mgm-las-vegas-shooting-settlement.html

    "MGM Agrees to Pay Las Vegas Shooting Victims Up to $800 Million"

    "The settlement would resolve claims that MGM was negligent in allowing the killer to stockpile weapons and ammunition at its Mandalay Bay hotel."

    "The company that owns the Las Vegas hotel where a gunman opened fire from his room onto a country music festival two years ago, killing 58 and wounding hundreds of others, agreed on Thursday to pay up to $800 million to settle lawsuits filed by victims.

    MGM Resorts International, which owns the hotel, Mandalay Bay, announced the settlement, ending what had become a closely watched case about liability in mass shootings.

    The killer, Stephen Paddock, holed up inside his room on the 32nd floor with a cache of weapons and fired at thousands of music fans as the night’s final concert began. It was the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history.

    Thursday’s settlement appears to resolve litigation that had raised novel and significant issues of law, including how culpable large companies and property owners are in mass-casualty attacks."

    "While there is often litigation after mass shootings — such as lawsuits that parents filed against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used in the 2012 massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. — legal experts said the scope and nature of the legal issues raised in the MGM case were without precedent.

    Faced with potentially hundreds of lawsuits, MGM sued more than 1,000 victims in July 2018, in an aggressive but untested strategy to short-circuit the cases and shield itself from liability.

    Robert Eglet, one of the lawyers for the victims, said on Thursday that the settlement would be in the range of $735 million to $800 million and would cover nearly all of the lawsuits and claims against MGM related to the massacre.

    “While nothing will be able to bring back the lives lost or undo the horrors so many suffered on that day, this settlement will provide fair compensation for thousands of victims and their families,” Mr. Eglet said in a statement, adding that the deal “represents good corporate citizenship” on the part of MGM.

    Another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Craig Eiland, said that the settlement was expected to cover up to 4,500 people, which he said would include everything “from death cases all the way down to those who had PTSD.”

    THE VICTIMS
    " Those killed in the Las Vegas shooting included 36 women and 22 men. The oldest was 67, the youngest 20.

    Passing the two-year statute of limitations for filing new claims — which happened this week — was critical to finalizing the settlement, Mr. Eiland added.

    Depending on the settlement’s final cost, all or nearly all of the money paid to the victims will come from MGM’s insurers. The company’s coverage limit for this case was $751 million, so the most MGM will have to pay would be $49 million.

    An independent claims administrator, who will need to be approved by a judge, will review medical bills and other expenses, as well as the circumstances of each victim, before deciding how much each will receive."

    "It was not immediately known whether any of the victims who have filed claims will opt out of the settlement and instead take their cases to trial. How many eventually agree to participate in the settlement will determine the precise amount that MGM’s insurers — and possibly the company — will end up paying. The company predicted that the process would be completed by the end of 2020.

    On Thursday, MGM’s chief executive, Jim Murren, called the agreement “a major step, and one that we hoped for a long time would be possible. We have always believed that prolonged litigation around these matters is in no one’s best interest.”

    At first, MGM responded with a hardball legal strategy when claims poured in from the injured and the relatives of the dead, who accused the company of negligence in allowing Mr. Paddock to stockpile high-powered rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition in his hotel room."

    video
    Using exclusive surveillance footage obtained from MGM Resorts, we pieced together the last days of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas gunman. He plays video poker, laughs with hotel staff and hauls bag after bag of weapons into his suite.

    "It had sought to block victims from recovering any money from the company, arguing that a little-known federal law passed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks shielded MGM from liability because the shooting qualified as an “act of terrorism” under that federal law’s expansive definitions.

    Because of that — and also because a security firm hired for the music festival possessed a special designation from the Department of Homeland Security — MGM argued that its interpretation of the law meant that it should not have to pay damage claims to injured concertgoers.

    The federal law is known as the Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act, or Safety Act. It was believed to be the first time that anyone had sought to use the law this way to defend lawsuit claims in the aftermath of a major mass shooting."

    "NO KNOWN MOTIVE
     The police were not able to determine the gunman’s motive in the Las Vegas attack.

    As part of its strategy to have the company declared immune from liability by funneling cases to a federal court where that issue could be litigated, MGM sued more than 1,000 people who had already filed cases or indicated an intent to pursue claims against the company. Though the company’s lawsuits did not seek any money, the strategy stirred anger against MGM.

    Last October, however, a panel of federal judges denied MGM’s attempt to consolidate the cases in one court, saying that because “the contours of this litigation are not yet apparent, centralization is inappropriate.” The question of whether the Safety Act shielded MGM from liability was never decided.

    By February the two sides were in mediation, and by May the rough outlines of the settlement had already been worked out."

    “MGM, and also the victims and their lawyers, recognized that years of litigation did not make sense, and there was risk in taking a case forward, and that it would take a tremendous emotional toll on the victims, the community and our company,” John McManus, MGM’s general counsel, said in an interview on Thursday.

    “We wanted a consensual resolution to this case,” he added. “We did not want to be fighting with the victims and their families.”

    Several factors most likely influenced MGM’s decision to settle, including bad publicity spurred by the company’s legal tactics and that they were able to reach an agreement with the plaintiffs’ lawyers for right around the limit their insurers were willing to pay, said Carl Tobias, a tort-law professor at the University of Richmond law school.

    “I think they reached a tipping point, so the settlement made sense, especially since they’re not really paying anything out,” said Mr. Tobias, who previously taught law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, near where the attack took place.

    While the initial strategy made it seem like “they were going to defend this to the end,” he added, “the settlement is a sign that there were other important factors to be considered."

    At least some are making efforts, to make things right for the victims, the wounded, and their families.

  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    That is with regards to the absolute numbers. In terms of guns per capita, as the article mentions, the rate dropped by 23%.

    I find this to me a more enlightening figure:



    The harsh regulations were introduced in 1996, and, as we can see, the gun violence continued steadily decreasing at roughly the same rate as it was before 1996, overall repeating the pattern found in the US and Canada, where similarly harsh regulations were not introduced.

    Countless research papers show that there is no obvious correlation between the strictness of gun laws and gun violence, but there is a strong correlation between gun violence and other types of violence, which indicates that the problem is cultural, not legal. Something that people have been pointing out for decades already, yet the widespread acknowledgement of the scientific fact is yet to occur.

    Here is an earlier figure for skeptics, just in case:



    That's what researchers at the Univ of Melbourne found over a decade ago.  I find it interesting that while firearm homicides and suicides have significantly dropped in Australia from their 1915 levels, non-firearm homicides and suicides have stayed pretty close to their 1915 levels.

    The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.

    ...

    Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

    ...

    Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

    https://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf




    MayCaesar
  • @TKDB ;
    There has to be a trial, In order to preserve American United State Consecution, by united state Consecution a private settlement cannot legally be made in a matter concerning armory. The stock piling of weapons and munitions. All parties in this matter by their creation have an obligation to United State Constitution and to preserve a common defense to the general welfare. The type of independent negotiation which is taking place can be misconstrued as being illegal as a form of public advertisement profiting from misfortune of others.

    By February the two sides were in mediation, and by May the rough outlines of the settlement had already been worked out."

    Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    https://usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html

    Domestic Tranquility
    One of the concerns of the Framers was that the government prior to that under the Constitution was unable, by force or persuasion, to quell rebellion or quarrels amongst the states. The government watched in horror as Shay's Rebellion transpired just before the Convention, and some states had very nearly gone to war with each other over territory (such as between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over Wilkes-Barre). One of the main goals of the Convention, then, was to ensure the federal government had powers to squash rebellion and to smooth tensions between states.

    Welfare
    welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [<ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: AHD

    Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

    Posterity
    posterity n. 1. Future generations. 2. All of a person's descendants. [<Lat. posteritas.] Source: AHD

    Ordain
    ordain v. 2. To order by or as if by decree. [<Lat. ordinaire, to organize] Source: AHD

    https://usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN

    All people are to be held accountable. ( legally accountable by documentation on public record by due process of law.) Including victims and representation. This was the act of a ground force as a creation of armory had taken place on common ground. The Amory is held to blame along with all those "persons" who hold stake in the 2nd Amendment of American Constitution.


      
  • If you don't like guns, don't buy one. Guns are a right for responsible adults. People have the human right to self defense. You don't have the right to force your leftist beliefs on other people.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar

    I don't know about gow useful statistics being in a class room would be.  What I do think would be useful would be gun saftey.  Even kids who come from homes without guns and are raised with anti-gun values tend to have what I would say is a natural curiosity of them.  Blame it on movies, video games or just simply a childs curiosity of something new and how it works.  If they are taught from an early age the dangers that can result from the mishandling of a fire arm and at minimally the basic gun safety measures we might have fewer incidents of accidental deaths of young children.
  • all4actt said:
    @MayCaesar

    I don't know about gow useful statistics being in a class room would be.  What I do think would be useful would be gun saftey.  Even kids who come from homes without guns and are raised with anti-gun values tend to have what I would say is a natural curiosity of them.  Blame it on movies, video games or just simply a childs curiosity of something new and how it works.  If they are taught from an early age the dangers that can result from the mishandling of a fire arm and at minimally the basic gun safety measures we might have fewer incidents of accidental deaths of young children.

    It sounds like you're talking about the Eddie Eagle program.
  • Statistics indicate that a gun in the home will not protect you , and that strict gun laws will make it harder for a criminal to get a gun https://www.vox.com/2015/10/1/18000520/gun-risk-death  https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study
    The statistics are based on criminal use only and are not civil law.

    1.The system of law concerned with private relations between members of a community rather than criminal, military, or religious affairs.

    2.The system of law predominant on the European continent, historically influenced by that of ancient Rome.

    https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/civil_law

    The statistics of protection are based on criminals connected to a public presumption of guilt, and are not looking at four types of civil law that address Negligence, 1. Duty. 2. Breach of duty.3. Causation.4. Damages as a legal precedent

    https://legaldictionary.net/civil-law/

    The right to bear arm shall not be infringed is a duty, by saying no, then not bearing arm there is a small Breach of duty, we are not making anything any safer by stripping that weight set by lethal force form others we do not only know in advance the greater danger it is understand others can be hurt or killed by this action as well. The idea of payment, in advance of threat, damages, or harm in relationship to lethal force is not proven a common defense to the general welfare in armed services when asking, testing, and paying others to be armed on your behalf. A united State constitutional argument of duty might be to the public posting of ballistic shields much like already in place by fears created by fires, Fire doors do not make lager fires illegal, Fire Extinguisher do not keep matches in small single use packages. The same can be said about gasoline and electric as well in relationship to fires and presumption of human innocence.

  • DeeDee 813 Pts


    Remarkable how Americans need guns in the home just to feel safe against burglars who it seems are Hell bent on targeting the ordinary American citizen in their home. Most amusing also that Americans seem totally oblivious to something called a house alarm which 90 per cent of citizens over here have and swear by its effectiveness, I don’t know one person who has ever had their home invaded but thankfully I don’t live in the U S where going on the hysterical rants regards guns home invasion appears to be a very real threat 
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaZombieguy1987
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1203 Pts
    edited October 15
    Dee said:


    Remarkable how Americans need guns in the home just to feel safe against burglars who it seems are Hell bent on targeting the ordinary American citizen in their home. Most amusing also that Americans seem totally oblivious to something called a house alarm which 90 per cent of citizens over here have and swear by its effectiveness, I don’t know one person who has ever had their home invaded but thankfully I don’t live in the U S where going on the hysterical rants regards guns home invasion appears to be a very real threat 

    Count you blessings you don't live in the UK;

    -    Every year, there are over 1 million burglaries and attempted burglaries.
    -    A burglary happens every 40 seconds in the UK.
    -    Most burglaries are not pre-planned but are committed by opportunistic criminals.
    -    Burglary victimisation occurs in 6% of cases when no or less than basic security, and 1% of cases where basic or enhanced security exists, in other words where there is  window locks and double locks or deadlocks on outside doors.
    -    A poll by Halifax found out 34% of householders with an alarm fitted to their home said they rarely activated it while a further 33% also said that they assume sounding burglar alarms in their neighbourhood to be false.
    -    73% of burglars use doors, which are open in 3% of cases.
    -    64% of householders also confessed to occasionally leaving doors unlocked whilst away from home and a further 37% whilst inside the home – even though statistics show that 22% of burglaries are carried out with the thief aware that the home was occupied.
    -    Infographics say that 57% of burglaries occur when someone is at home.
    -    Through a Victim Support Survey, it has been discovered that 1 in 4 victims have had their house broken into more than once.
    -    A British survey has found that repeat victims are likely to make up between 60-80% of all crime incidents.
    -    Most likely break-in and burglary victims are single-parent families in urban UK areas as they are affected twice more than homes with two parents, and thrice more than households without children.
    -    Urban residents are twice more susceptible to be burglars’ targets than rural dwellers.
    -    56% of burglaries happen at night.
    -    Most burglaries take place after dark; 10% occur in the morning, 20% in the afternoon, 32% in the evening and 23% during the night, whereas 30% occur in the weekend.
    https://www.rsgsecurity.co.uk/blog/news/interesting-uk-burglary-statistics

    I don't know anyone who's house has burned down, but I still own a fire extinguisher.
  • @Dee ;

    At least your in a foreign Country the people who you hurt are in that Nation. By the way to help clear something up it not the burglars who make me feel unsafe it is the legislators and lawyers as they are the ones that confront issues of law that create outbreaks of irrational behavior from p[people. How many people do you know? I have had the dishonor of knowing a person who had made a carrier out of strong arm burglaries while struggling to keep a small business going. Statistically many homes that are robed that way go unreported it is much like rape, the people are to ashamed. Not that it matters, lethal force can become an issue of home invasions without gun easier then with a gun for criminals not saying anything, just using bruit force and they stand less change of urgency.

    That principle in its self is much more scary then simple self-defense of some who might have a gun.
  • @WordsMatter

    You said>>>Upper middle class to rich people aren't exactly the ones committing mass shootings 

    Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but weren't the children who committed the school shootings prodominitly from middle class to upper middle or wealthy families?  Also the man that committed the Las Vegas mass shooting wasn't hurting financially.  I don't know about the rest.   Their financial situations are not generally discussed.  So please don't make it sound like mass shooters are a problem of the poor.
    JAC
  • @CYDdharta
    https://eddieeagle.nra.org/

    That was cute and for young children very appropriate.
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    edited October 16
    @CYDdharta

    Count you blessings you don't live in the UK.


    You should relocate there seeing as your burglary rate makes the UK look like Utopia ......

    On average, a burglary happensonce every 23 seconds in the US. According to 2017 crime statistics from the FBI, there are almost three burglariesevery minute in America, making it the second-most frequent crime behind larceny-theft. When you add it up, that's 3,757 burglariesa day


    Maybe it is time for you guys to get a decent house alarm



    I don't know anyone who's house has burned down, but I still own a fire extinguisher


    Yet you don’t have a house alarm 

    JAC
  • Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    Count you blessings you don't live in the UK.


    You should relocate there seeing as your burglary rate makes the UK look like Utopia ......

    On average, a burglary happensonce every 23 seconds in the US. According to 2017 crime statistics from the FBI, there are almost three burglariesevery minute in America, making it the second-most frequent crime behind larceny-theft. When you add it up, that's 3,757 burglariesa day


    Maybe it is time for you guys to get a decent house alarm


    I see math, like logic, isn't your strong suit I see. 

    US population - 2016 – 324,000,000
    UK population - 2016 –   65,648,100

    There may be roughly 1-1/2 times more burglaries in the US than the UK, but the US has almost 5 times the population.  I trust you understand the problem with your numbers.

    I don't know anyone who's house has burned down, but I still own a fire extinguisher


    Yet you don’t have a house alarm

    Who said I didn't?  A house alarm, like a fire alarm, alerts someone to the problem.  A gun, like a fire extinguisher, provides the person a means of dealing with the problem.



    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @CYDdharta



    ******* I see math, like logic, isn't your strong suit I see.  


    US population - 2016 – 324,000,000

    UK population - 2016 –   65,648,100


    There may be roughly 1-1/2 times more burglaries in the US than the UK, but the US has almost 5 times the population.  I trust you understand the problem with your numbers.



    Your idea of “Math” is N R A stats we won’t mention your “logical” skills as again they are totally contradictory as usual 



    I see irrational paranoia is your problem like most gun owners .

    It is over-preparation to buy a weapon JUST for the purpose of protecting against your 0.32% lifetime chanceof death by a home invader murderer. The lifetime oddsof death by firearm assault in any context in the U.S




    ******Who said I didn't?  A house alarm, like a fire alarm, alerts someone to the problem.  A gun, like a fire extinguisher, provides the person a means of dealing with the problem.



    Right , so burglars in the U S when they hear the house alarm go off still persist in carrying out their robberies.


    Do you also have a fire brigade in your house in case the fire is an inferno?


    JAC
  • Not that burglary and theft are unimportant issues of great concern, a united state exists around the burden of lethal force in holding an armory by way of arm. This is a duty to provide liberty to a common cause as a group of people, for the people, by the people, we are not told we must do so, the people cannot share this duty, the people do not all share the duty, people are given the freedom of choice.

     It is clear the choice taken is what exposes the people to the lower or higher level of danger. When not caring the weight of the 2nd Amendment the risk of lethal force directed at them with no defense increases by placing the weight not held by them on another people. The person may or may not be in a proximity to them therefore the risk of danger and death is increased.

    Do you expect to be represented by a soldier of some kind? Do you expect to be represented by law? There is an obligation as duty to offer a level of legal protection by sharing the weight of lethal force with the armed service men and woman. Basic principle no presumption of crime used to create the United State that can be held with other in a collection of United States.


  • Your idea of “Math” is N R A stats we won’t mention your “logical” skills as again they are totally contradictory as usual

    Somehow, I knew you wouldn't be able come up with a rational, reasoned, intelligent response. 

    I see irrational paranoia is your problem like most gun owners .

    It is over-preparation to buy a weapon JUST for the purpose of protecting against your 0.32% lifetime chanceof death by a home invader murderer. The lifetime oddsof death by firearm assault in any context in the U.S

    Do think maybe the reason that rate is so low is because people possess the means to protect themselves?  No, of course not; as you've already made clear, logic is not your strong suit.

    Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.


    Right , so burglars in the U S when they hear the house alarm go off still persist in carrying out their robberies.


    Typical burglars may be dissuaded by an alarm, but then A] not all burglaries are typical, and B] burglaries aren't the only crimes that can be thwarted by people protecting themselves.
    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    edited October 16
    @CYDdharta


    Do think maybe the reason that rate is so low is because people possess the means to protect themselves?  No, of course not; as you've already made clear, logic is not your strong suit.


    Right so American burglars do not now target American homeowners because they assume they have a gun , yet you say Americans need a gun to ......protect themselves in the home .......Hilarious........Do you have a notice on your house saying .....Beware burgalars I own a gun .........do  show it to them to verify the fact?

    You really are offensively stupid 

    JAC
  • Dee said:
    @CYDdharta


    Do think maybe the reason that rate is so low is because people possess the means to protect themselves?  No, of course not; as you've already made clear, logic is not your strong suit.


    Right so American burglars do not now target American homeowners because they assume they have a gun , yet you say Americans need a gun to ......protect themselves in the home .......Hilarious........Do you have a notice on your house saying .....Beware burgalars I own a gun .........do  show it to them to verify the fact?

    You really are offensively stupid 


    I'm sure there are topics that you're not entirely ignorant of, this one, much like basic logic and common sense, obviously isn't among them.

    Burglars tend to try to target homes that are unoccupied.  Sometimes they buck that tendency and sometimes they're wrong.  And once again, burglaries aren't the only crimes that can be thwarted by people protecting themselves.


    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Burglars tend to try to target homes that are unoccupied


    ****Right , but you stated you need a gun to feel safe in the home against .....burglars , You keep changing your story but I guess that’s on account of your goldfish memory 


    .  ****Sometimes they buck that tendency and sometimes they're wrong.  


    Wow! you’re well up on the burglars mindset 



    ****And once again, burglaries aren't the only crimes that can be thwarted by


    But we are talking about the home and guns in it ....remember? No I thought so 

    JAC
  • Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    ****Right , but you stated you need a gun to feel safe in the home against .....burglars ,


    No I didn't.  Now you're just lying.

    You keep changing your story but I guess that’s on account of your goldfish memory 


    You lack the mental acuity to follow a simple conversation.  Have you consulted a doctor about this deficiency?  There are a number of new Alzheimer treatments now available.


    Wow! you’re well up on the burglars mindset 

    Simple logic.  Maybe if your Alzheimer treatment starts working, you'll be able to make logical conclusions too.

    But we are talking about the home and guns in it ....remember? No I thought so

    Burglary isn't the only crime thwarted by people exercising self defense in the home, there's also home invasion/robbery, rape, assault to name a few.
    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    edited October 16
    @CYDdharta

    Again your genetic stupidity leaves you in a position where you actually deny what you actually claim , get an education , you seem to think copy and pasting NRA stats makes you look clever it just confirms my initial evaluation as in you’re genetically stupid 


    Lets examine your stupidity in your own words ......


    Burglary isn't the only crime thwarted by people exercising self defense in the home, there's also home invasion/robbery, rape, assault to name a few.


    Do you know home invasion/robbery is ....burglary no ? It’s a given you’re stupid but you’re really pushing it ...... American thugs now break into homes just to assault people ?  Or to rape people? .......Hilarious 

    JAC
  • @CYDdharta

    ****Burglars tend to try to target homes that are unoccupied.

    In the U.K. they don't really care if people or home or not, nothing to stop them.
  • Dee said:
    @CYDdharta

    Do you know home invasion/robbery is ....burglary no ?

    No, I know no such thing, because, as usual, you're wrong.


    See a mental health professional soon.  Every day that passes is a little more mental capacity that can never be recovered.  Your time grows short.

    JAC
  • @Dee

    ****American thugs now break into homes just to assault people ?  Or to rape people?

    They do if that was there original intent.  Do you think all assaults and rapes are from burglaries that went bad.

    **** You seem to think copy and pasting NRA stats makes you look clever

    Those aren't NRA stats they are CDC stats. Obama ordered them to research the topic because he thought it would prove his point, but it did the opposite.

    The point is not only should you have the right to protect yourself, but mere fact that a firearm is somewhat likely to exist turns away burglars especially when someone may be home.  Gun owners are actually helping keep others safe merely by raising the statistical likelihood of a household owning a gun.  Its the same reason many people can deter burglars just by using signs saying they are protected by an alarm system without owning one, burglars don't want to take the risk. This is also one of the main reasons Japan refused to try and invade the American mainland in WWII.


    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @MichaelElpers


    *****They do if that was there original intent.  Do you think all assaults and rapes are from burglaries that went bad.



    I don’t know how things work in the U S you guys keep telling me that burglaries  never or rarely happen but yet need a gun in case your dodgy American made house alarms fail 




    ****Those aren't NRA stats they are CDC stats. Obama ordered them to research the topic because he thought it would prove his point, but it did the opposite.


    Stats can be used any way one wants and rarely settle anything 


    ****The point is not only should you have the right to protect yourself, but mere fact that a firearm is somewhat likely to exist turns away burglars especially when someone may be home.  


    Yet in my society no one has guns and break ins  are rare those house alarms do their job pretty well 


    ****Gun owners are actually helping keep others safe merely by raising the statistical likelihood of a household owning a gun.  


    You guys need guns to do that proving what a violent society you live in 


    ****Its the same reason many people can deter burglars just by using signs saying they are protected by an alarm system without owning one, burglars don't want to take the risk. 


    But yet you still need a gun ....just in case 



    ****This is also one of the main reasons Japan refused to try and invade the American mainland 



    Nonsense , you need to get a decent history book you Americans and your revisionist history . The feasibility of a full-scale invasion of Hawaii on  the continental United States by imperialist  Japan was considered negligible, with Japan possessing neither the manpower nor logistical ability to do so.

    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I said ........Do you know home invasion/robbery is ....burglary no ?



    *****No, I know no such thing, because, as usual, you're wrong.


    https://criminal.laws.com/burglary/burglary-vs-robbery


    See a mental health professional soon.  Every day that passes is a little more mental capacity that can never be recovered.  Your time grows short.*****




    Yet the accepted definition of burglary is as below, of course this is without the American reinterpretation of what words actually mean as opposed to what idiots like you think they mean ......


    burglary

    /ˈbəːɡləri/

    noun

    noun: burglary; plural noun: burglaries

    1 illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime, especially theft.

  • @Dee

    ****you guys keep telling me that burglaries  never or rarely happen but yet need a gun in case your dodgy American made house alarms fail.

    Not because they dodgy, but because alarms aren't 100% effective deterrent.  Its just a safety net.

    ****Stats can be used any way one wants and rarely settle anything.

    No they can't.  People can lie about the stats and people can use dumb stats to follow illogical conclusions, but correctly used stats bring about logical conclusions.

    For example the media will state in the U.S. that black people get killed by police twice as often as they should because they make up (not exact numbers) 28% of deaths but are only 14% of the population.  Drawing police brutality as a conclusion. What they fail to neglect is that they make up 28% of the crime rate meaning that because they have more interactions with police there are no anomalies showing police brutality.

    Now I'm not sure how I'm drawing an illogical conclusion that guns in America are used more to protect than harm if estimated 500000-3million defensive uses. You could argue how they came up with those numbers, but other agencies have come up with similar figures.

    ****You guys need guns to do that proving what a violent society you live in.

    No, but every deterrent helps.  And it doesn't prove anything about violence. 

    Please start drawing actual logical conclusions, you're just making statements based on emotion.  None of the replies I highlighted form any sort of argument.


    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @MichaelElpers



    ****Not because they dodgy, but because alarms aren't 100% effective deterrent.  Its just a safety net.


    Nothing is 100 per cent effective , do you have a fire engine in your house in case your fire extinguisher fails?




    ****No they can't.  People can lie about the stats and people can use dumb stats to follow illogical conclusions, but correctly used stats bring about logical conclusions.


    Yes they can .....Statistics seemingly can be used to prove or disprove anything and many statistics are made up on the spot; 7 out of 10 people know this to be true!! Now you might think Statistics are raw data and should lead one to conclusion. ... Statistics is a method for analyzing large data sets, raw or otherwise.



    ****For example the media will state in the U.S. that black people get killed by police twice as often as they should because they make up (not exact numbers) 28% of deaths but are only 14% of the population.  Drawing police brutality as a conclusion. What they fail to neglect is that they make up 28% of the crime rate meaning that because they have more interactions with police there are no anomalies showing police brutality.



    Police brutality and targeted racism are par for the course in the US you guys have it down to fine  art as history demonstrates.....Would you like some examples? 



    unleashed a barrage of 55 shots




    **** No, but every deterrent helps.  And it doesn't prove anything about violence.  


    So you need a house alarm and a gun just to feel safe wow! 


    ****Please start drawing actual logical conclusions, you're just making statements based on emotion.  


    No emotion there buddy just common sense an alien concept to you as you need a gun in your home and going about just to feel safe .....The American Dream indeed 


    ****None of the replies I highlighted form any sort of argument.


    You live in such a violent society you need armed security in your schools , cannot go to sleep without a gun to protect you and cannot go about your business without the constant threat of violence , you wouldn’t know an argument if you hit you in the face you’re totally brainwashed 

    JAC
  • @Dee

    ****Nothing is 100 per cent effective , do you have a fire engine in your house in case your fire extinguisher fails?

    No because a fire engine has no form of convenience.  Too large and expensive.  Where as a gun is easily stored and not that expensive.  See the difference?  Its about benefit to cost, and many people think that owning a gun to protect their family is worth it. 

    ****So you need a house alarm and a gun just to feel safe wow!

    Nope, I have neither just a sign saying that I have a house alarm, I'm not going to take away that right from people that do who may live in more dangerous neighborhoods or have reasons I don't need to know about.  And again a gun is just an insurance policy, it doesn't mean people constantly feel threatened.

    ****Statistics seemingly can be used to prove or disprove anything and many statistics are made up on the spot; 7 out of 10 people know this to be true!! Now you might think Statistics are raw data and should lead one to conclusion.

    Again yes people can lie and manipulate stats to draw false conclusions.  But analyzed correctly (taking all factors into play) stats will draw a logical conclusion.   Again for example, people can say women draw in less income in America 77 cents to the dollar can draw the conclusion that overall women make less money, but they can't draw the conclusion that means there is a wage gap (ie make less for the same job). Men and women don't work the same jobs and taking in all factors experience, age, ect. the wage gap is not there.

    ****Police brutality and targeted racism are par for the course in the US you guys have it down to fine  art as history demonstrates.....Would you like some examples?

    Sure, you can show some anecdotal examples that show that police brutality and racism sometimes occur till your blue in the face.  Stats however would show you that there is not a noticeable difference between the amount of interactions between police and of those of different races leading to death/injury.

    ***You wouldn’t know an argument if you hit you in the face you’re totally brainwashed.

    You've never presented an argument backed with any evidence.  Just, "how sad that you need a gun to feel safe"...emotion and not true.  People have insurance on their homes for things such as fire ect and have fire alarms.  Its unlikely to happen but bought anyway. This doesn't mean people constantly live in fear of a fire ect.

    ****cannot go to sleep without a gun to protect you and cannot go about your business without the constant threat of violence.

    I do.  Why do refugees and others even come to this country? From you it sounds unstable, who would want to come here?



    JAC
  • DeeDee 813 Pts
    @MichaelElpers


    ****No because a fire engine has no form of convenience.  Too large and expensive. 



    Right so you  accept you would have no back up if your fire extinguisher failed but yet need back up if your house alarm failed


    ****as a gun is easily stored and not that expensive.  See the difference?  Its about benefit to cost, and many people think that owning a gun to protect their family is worth it. 


    Interesting , so you base your families safety on cost better to die from fire than home invasion as a gun does the trick apparently



    ****Nope, I have neither just a sign saying that I have a house alarm, I'm not going to take away that right from people that do who may live in more dangerous neighborhoods or have reasons I don't need to know about.  And again a gun is just an insurance policy, it doesn't mean people constantly feel threatened.


    Sure it does a gun is a weapon designed to kill we don’t have or need them here you guys do , yet hate admitting it why’s that?






    ****Again yes people can lie and manipulate stats to draw false conclusions.  


    You mean conclusions you don’t agree with 


    ****But analyzed correctly (taking all factors into play) stats will draw a logical conclusion.   


    How do you know all the factors and why do you believe what they say? Look at the NRAs stats for example why would anyone except a gun nut accept them 



    ****Again for example, people can say women draw in less income in America 77 cents to the dollar can draw the conclusion that overall women make less money, but they can't draw the conclusion that means there is a wage gap (ie make less for the same job). Men and women don't work the same jobs and taking in all factors experience, age, ect. the wage gap is not there.



    Nonsense ......Over half a century after the US passed the Equal Pay Act, American women still face a substantial gender wage gapacross the spectrum.

    Today, on average, a woman working full time earns 80.7 cents for every dollar a man working full time earns. Additionally, women's median annual earnings are $9,909 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau.


    Business insider 


    ****

    Sure, you can show some anecdotal examples that show that police brutality and racism sometimes occur till your blue in the face.  Stats however would show you that there is not a noticeable difference between the amount of interactions between police and of those of different races leading to death/injury.



    Anecdotal evidence? What a lame defence.  Show me where black cops shot a white man 55 times as a counter?


    ****You've never presented an argument backed with any evidence.  Just, "how sad that you need a gun to feel safe"...emotion and not true.  


    Ha , ha says a guy who thinks his opinion piece if fact , denies American news pieces calling them “anecdotal” just to preserve his obvious racism and stupidly thinks women are on equal terms with men regards salary when the respected Business insider gives evidence that proves the reverse.


    You were given two pieces of evidence to none presented by you so far 



    ***People have insurance on their homes for things such as fire ect and have fire alarms.  Its unlikely to happen but bought anyway. This doesn't mean people constantly live in fear of a fire 


    Why the need for a gun If there no threat a house a house alarm is enough 





    ****I do.  Why do refugees and others even come to this country? From you it sounds unstable, who would want to come here?


    A refugee will go to any country that is remotely different to the Hell holes they come from and normally that’s the nearest country to them 


    JAC
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 83 Pts
    edited October 17
    @Dee

    ****Ha , ha says a guy who thinks his opinion piece if fact , denies American news pieces calling them “anecdotal” just to preserve his obvious racism and stupidly thinks women are on equal terms with men regards salary when the respected Business insider gives evidence that proves the reverse.

    Hilarious.  I even gave you example of why the wage gap is false and you repeated the fallacy.  One more time just to see if you can understand.

    Yes men on average earn a higher income...I never said they didn't.  This is due to the fact that men dominate the highest earning career fields while women dominate the lowest paying professions.  When put on exact equal footing experience and job their is no gap, in fact google thought they were doing this only to realize in fact they were paying women slightly more than men. https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/700288695/google-pay-study-finds-its-underpaying-men-for-some-jobs.  If you could pay women $0.80 to the dollar to perform the exact same task, businesses would be moronic to not only hire women and decrease labor by 20%.  This has been debunked over and over again.

    By the way learn what an opinion is.  Facts are backed by evidence, your arguments are either all opinion or backed by false logic (wage gap).


    ****Anecdotal evidence? What a lame defence.  Show me where black cops shot a white man 55 times as a counter?

    My claim is not that a racial shooting never occurs.  My claim is that statistics show there is no anomaly between police brutality and minorities.  Here is an incident where a white man was shot, not 55 times but irrelevant...he was shot plenty of times to be killed.  Anecdotal evidence isn't enough evidence to prove anything.  There is a reason stats exist and why you need a large pool of data.  Why wouldn't you use the largest amount of data possible? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mesa-police-shooting-daniel-shaver-seen-crawling-begging-in-disturbing-video/


    ****Why the need for a gun If there no threat a house a house alarm is enough?

    So I guess where you live there has never been a single incident where an alarm hasn't dissuaded someone and a person has never been assaulted in their home...that's what your saying.


    ****You mean conclusions you don’t agree with.

    No I mean false conclusions or bad data generation.  Like the wage gap.  It is undeniably wrong.  If presented with men largely outnumber women in prisons would you claim its because cops are sexist?  No. 1. because it wouldn't fit your narrative and 2. Although your basing it off the first, your conclusion would be correct if you consider the crime rates.

     If the conclusion is sound it won't be proven illogical or false. Take a math course, maybe remember the scientific method as well.


    ****How do you know all the factors and why do you believe what they say? Look at the NRAs stats for example why would anyone except a gun nut accept them.

    I have never cited an NRA stat.  I look at the research and determine whether the numbers were generated fairly and whether the argument is sound.  Also look at counter arguments.

    In reference to the CDC, you can't argue if the numbers are correct that defensive uses of firearms are not used more often than the counterpart.  You could draw skepticism on how those numbers were generated.  All you do is claim people are dumb and wrong providing no analyzable evidence to the contrary.

    JAC
  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 824 Pts
    edited October 17
    Technically it doesn't make one safer, it's common sense and multiple studies have shown that... The one-year chances of a robbery inside your home are .004%, of them being armed is about .00168%. Lifetime chances of about 0.32%. Odds are about 1 in 6000, approximately twice as likely as getting struck by lightning in your lifetime. So proportionally speaking you should prepare for a home invasion twice as much as you prepare for being hit by lightning.

    A gun is no guarantee of safety. Statistically it increases the risk of accidental harm or death of someone in the house. The best burglary deterrent is a big, protective dog.

    Now that being said, the fact that it doesn't make one safer per se, is not reason enough to prevent people from having one should they want to...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • @Dee @Plaffelvohfen

    Hey look stats to back up an argument.  I agree, except for a dog being the most effective deterrent.
  • @MichaelElpers

    Dogs, CCTV camera (even fake ones) and reactive lighting are the most efficient burglary deterrents according to insurance companies, if anyone knows (since it directly affects them) they might be more credible than others... It's also interesting to note that 60% of all burglary happen during the day when nobody is home... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
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