frame

Howdy, Stranger!

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

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





You can keep your guns..

Debate Information

I think the reason people are so adamant about keeping their machine guns or big sniper rifles or whatever is bc they wanna have fun with them at shooting ranges. If that’s the case, THAN FINE. I personally do not care. You can keep shooting your guns at metal stuff, and you can have a blast. Literally a blast. But I think it’s reasonable to say that those guns should probably stay at the shooting range. I mean, if the point is to have fun with your guns, isn’t it at least a little concerning that some people’s idea of fun is bringing these big ol guns into public places? Like, as far as fun goes, I don’t think there’s a reason to have a big gun like that unless your gonna shoot them at a shooting range. Otherwise, It’s probably a humongous danger to people that your just bringing a gun that was prob built for war into public spaces. So yeah, you can have your big guns, but I think it’s probably a better idea to keep them at the range. Otherwise, you can just buy a 1911 or a Glock if ur really worried about self defense. 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    When you're defending yourself from people who have machine guns (criminals will always be able to get them), it's best to have one yourself.

    I like to have my means of defense in my own hands rather than the government, it was the same government organizations today that are supposed to protect us, that did Waco.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    I do not think that there is any reason to drink alcohol, or to smoke cigarettes, or to smoke pot, or to have sex with prostitutes, or to watch cable news - all of these activities seem wasteful at best and seriously damaging at worst to me, and everyone who thinks that they have a good reason to do them is deluding themselves.

    Me thinking that does not prompt me to want to restrict people's ability to do these things. Anyone is free to do something that does not have a good reason to be done. I can only decide for myself what activities have good reasons and what do not, and my decisions are going to be subjective and sometimes erroneous.

    The question of whether someone should be able to drive a loaded heavy tank into a Walmart parking lot is not that of need, but that of rights. In the ideal world, of property rights of Walmart specifically.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -   edited November 11
    Guns of any type have no part in a civilised socieity that aims for progression and inclusiveness US as the world can see is a truly regressive and divisive society

    Americans are very strange people indeed they attempt to normalise how dysfunctional as a society they are by pointing out it’s everyone else who  is actually dysfunctional for not accepting their machismo reasoning for owning guns 

    The citizens of the US cite as the number one reason for gun ownership is protection , when one asks “so you feel unsafe in your own homes and socieity” they screech and wail “how dare you our country is very safe “ then the usual teary eyed game starts of how wonderfully safe the country actually is and they’re only exercising their “goddamned rights “

    When armed guards have to be employed in schools to protect your kids from the threat of being shot you know you’re living in a very sick society , worse still Americans try to normalise it the  usual response to a yet another school or general mass shooting is a call to prayer or “we need more goddamned guns “ 

    I live in a gun free society even our beat cops don’t carry guns , does anyone think if a law came in allowing citizens carry guns we would as a society somehow improve ?
  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    It's a fantasy to say that everyone should just be peaceful and feel safe all the time, so we "don't need guns". There are two main reasons to have guns, for protection for the "just in case" scenarios with criminal activity and against government tyranny. Criminals will always get guns through illegal channels, so every time a mass shooting happens, everyone blames legal gun owners and say "You don't need those!" Yes we do and there are countless examples where if not for legal responsible gun owners, where criminals were stopped and lives were saved.  As far as government tyranny, yes we still have examples of even that and some of the worst countries on earth, the citizens have no guns, no ability to fight the government and are controlled by the government, such as in North Korea, Myamar, Cambodia, China. Biden himself made a veiled threat that people shouldn't have assault rifles because if they were to fight the government they'd "need a lot more than that since we have tanks". The original reason for citizen gun ownership as outlined by the founders of this country was for personal defense and defense against a tyrannical government since if not for that, they would not have been able to found this country and free ourselves from Great Britain. I can cite hundreds of cases where lives were saved by responsible gun owners against criminals. That is not a "strange thing" and it's not machismo, it's just common sense. What is not common sense is to blame responsible gun owners for the crimes of those who obtained guns illegally and used them to kill innocents. It's a nice thought that we could live in a world without criminals, crazy people and tyrannical governments...but there are still just too many of them and it's irresponsible to disarm the only protection some have against legitimate threats. Our own govt in the US has become corrupt, so much so that it's moving slowly towards socialism and trying to disarm citizens. Every single time this happens in history, the govt goes tyrannical and we are seeing this right now in several countries, Cuba, Brazil and others included. This country is safe in some parts, not safe in others, I wouldn't dare to go into parts of Texas without a gun and that's sad, but if I was disarmed, I'd have no defense at all and would be more likely to be robbed or killed and all because you couldn't understand that criminals don't care about gun laws. 
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    It's a fantasy to say that everyone should just be peaceful and feel safe all the time, so we "don't need guns". 

    But I never said that 

    There are two main reasons to have guns, for protection for the "just in case" scenarios with criminal activity and against government tyranny. Criminals will always get guns through illegal channels, so every time a mass shooting happens, everyone blames legal gun owners and say "You don't need those!" Yes we do and there are countless examples where if not for legal responsible gun owners, where criminals were stopped and lives were saved.  

    I applaud you for at least acknowledging you live in a very violent society where guns are necessary 

    It seems America is unique as in criminals get gun to just to attack citizens . Over here criminals have guns the citizens have none have a guess at who the criminals target with the guns?

    As far as government tyranny, yes we still have examples of even that and some of the worst countries on earth, the citizens have no guns, no ability to fight the government and are controlled by the government, such as in North Korea, Myamar, Cambodia, China. Biden himself made a veiled threat that people shouldn't have assault rifles because if they were to fight the government they'd "need a lot more than that since we have tanks". The original reason for citizen gun ownership as outlined by the founders of this country was for personal defense and defense against a tyrannical government since if not for that, they would not have been able to found this country and free ourselves from Great Britain. I can cite hundreds of cases where lives were saved by responsible gun owners against criminals. That is not a "strange thing" and it's not machismo, it's just common sense.

    Yes of course Americans never stop telling the world what a great country and constitution they have but at the same time are terrified of government tyranny 

     What is not common sense is to blame responsible gun owners for the crimes of those who obtained guns illegally and used them to kill innocents. It's a nice thought that we could live in a world without criminals, crazy people and tyrannical governments...but there are still just too many of them and it's irresponsible to disarm the only protection some have against legitimate threats.

    If I were you I would consider moving to ensure my families safety 

    Our own govt in the US has become corrupt, so much so that it's moving slowly towards socialism and trying to disarm citizens. 

    Oh dear , I bet you’re a Trumper , you all sing from the same hymn sheet as in blame those lefties/commies on everything , what you clowns call socialism is fellow Americans calling for affordable housing / healthcare / education for the poor /minimum wage laws …..they’re called social policies we in civilised  countries take them for granted

    We all witnessed what Trump called a “peaceful demonstration “ when thugs tried to storm congress this is whatTrump and these id-iots do when their leader sulks like a baby when beaten fairly in a contest …..tyranny ……LOL

    Every single time this happens in history, the govt goes tyrannical and we are seeing this right now in several countries, Cuba, Brazil and others included. This country is safe in some parts, not safe in others, I wouldn't dare to go into parts of Texas without a gun and that's sad, but if I was disarmed, I'd have no defense at all and would be more likely to be robbed or killed and all because you couldn't understand that criminals don't care about gun laws. 

    Yes you live in a very dangerous society I get that and criminals in the US only target peaceful citizens because their reason for having a gun is to rob people in their own homes or on the street , sounds like your criminals are nearly as d-umb as the Trumpers 
  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -   edited November 11
    Dee said:
    @dallased25

    I applaud you for at least acknowledging you live in a very violent society where guns are necessary 

    I never said that. Violence happens in every society around the world, it's just a matter of how concentrated it is. 

    It seems America is unique as in criminals get gun to just to attack citizens . Over here criminals have guns the citizens have none have a guess at who the criminals target with the guns?

    No, America is not unique at all and we aren't even in the Top 20 as far as countries with the highest rates of firearm related deaths. I don't know where you are from, but I'm guessing criminals are targeting whomever has the money. 

    Yes of course Americans never stop telling the world what a great country and constitution they have but at the same time are terrified of government tyranny 

    I don't brag about America being a great country, it never really was. It's always had problems and the problem with people today is that they do not learn from history and think "Oh this is 2022, our government will never go tyrannical again"..except that it's already gone corrupt. We have politicians lining their pockets by buying stock, then making laws in favor of that business and selling it when the price raises. That's not even the tip of the iceberg, but just one example of why so many politicians are multi-millionaires and made most of it while in office. 

    If I were you I would consider moving to ensure my families safety 

    The area I live in is safe, but as I stated, there are parts of Texas you couldn't pay me to drive through. I stay away from the unsafe areas already. 

    Oh dear , I bet you’re a Trumper , you all sing from the same hymn sheet as in blame those lefties/commies on everything , what you clowns call socialism is fellow Americans calling for affordable housing / healthcare / education for the poor /minimum wage laws …..they’re called social policies we in civilised  countries take them for granted

    Then you'd be dead wrong. I will NOT vote for Trump! Fact is I used to be a Democrat, now I hate both parties equally and will only vote for the candidate that most closely aligns with my values. Unfortunately most of the Democratic party has lost their minds. I'm not the only one to notice this, there are Dems leaving the party and many who don't like their extremist views right now. So don't do the typical thing of so many people and prejudge me just so you can write me off, because you'll be wrong about every assumption you make about me and you know what happens when you make assumptions....

    We all witnessed what Trump called a “peaceful demonstration “ when thugs tried to storm congress this is whatTrump and these id-iots do when their leader sulks like a baby when beaten fairly in a contest …..tyranny ……LOL

    Again, don't call me a "Trumper", I didn't vote for him and I wouldn't ever vote for him. I voted for Obama and I voted for an Independent in the last election because I hated Trump and Biden! 

    Yes you live in a very dangerous society I get that and criminals in the US only target peaceful citizens because their reason for having a gun is to rob people in their own homes or on the street , sounds like your criminals are nearly as d-umb as the Trumpers 

    I don't know where you live that it's so peaceful that even officers don't need guns and apparently criminals with guns don't rob citizens ever...sounds like a magical place to me...but the US is middle of the pack as far as crime and gun related violence. We aren't at all unique in the world and your reductionist statements just tell me that you aren't very serious about this. Perhaps where you live it is fully socialist? So citizens don't really have any property or money for criminals to steal...like In China. I've been there, I have employees there, I've visited many times and even our top paid employee lives about as well as someone here in the US that works at McDonalds. So our citizens do have money, property, cars, watches, jewelry to steal. Citizens in China...you barely have anything because the govt takes just about all of your income. That's what socialist countries are like, but then again, the trade off is that you get free medical care, govt retirement plans, and many other things that the govt pays for with your money. The difference is in America, you get to keep the majority of what you actually earn and can choose what benefits you want to pay for. So tell me, where do you live that it's so peaceful?

    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  


    Point one ...That's exactly how someone else from the NRA would phrase it .


    Point two..
    America I just read was second place behind Brazil for gun deaths
    You should work PR the way you re-state things is interesting 
    In your opinion it seems criminals obtain guns to target civilians thats what you're suggesting right?

    Point three....
    On this we agree

    Point four 
    Safe but yet you need a gun

    Point five
    OK apologies for that but the minute an American mentions socialism they're normally a Republican as they never stop going on about commies / reds /socialists 
    I agree again both parties behave like spoiled brats while decent citizens suffer 
    I used to admire the Dems they're a joke now

    Point five
    No.worries read above 

    Point six
    The reason I don't mention where I live is because it turns into a comparison game and is unrelated to the topic as this is not about where I live but where you live 
    But yes no citizens carry guns here  only special police units carry guns here ,the beat police carry mace and a baton mace is banned for citizens as are guns and knives

    You  rarely hear of citizens robbed at gunpoint I know no one it has ever happened to,once in a while a big businessman may suffer such but its a rarity 

    I live in a capitalist country with social policies, Americans never get this they automatically assume you cannot have these thing unless you're a Socialist country 

    Regards taxes I pay none as a citizen I'm  tax exempt on account of my occupation I've never paid for health cover which I think.is scandalous as govements can easily afford to cover this but of course will deny it

    America spends trillions on a top heavy military when half that money could easily allow citizens very affordable health care yet Americans will fight tooth and nail defending there outrageously expensive healthcare system


    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    Just read USA had highest number of gun deaths in their history in 2020 45 ,000
  • dallased25dallased25 352 Pts   -  
    @DeeDee said:


    Point one ...That's exactly how someone else from the NRA would phrase it .

    Ok...except I'm not from the NRA and certainly not a member. Can you stop trying to place me in a bucket? 

    Point two..
    America I just read was second place behind Brazil for gun deaths
    You should work PR the way you re-state things is interesting 
    In your opinion it seems criminals obtain guns to target civilians thats what you're suggesting right?

    I got my stats here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country
    which does show that the US is 2nd only to Brazil, but it's about concentration as well, because the more population, the more #'s across the board in all categories, which is why you have to scale it to be even. For example the population of Brazil is 214 Million, but the US is 332 Million. So the next stat on that list is "Deaths by gun violence per 100k of residents", because that's statistics 101...not a "spin" and again, we are #18 on that list, which equates to 10.6 deaths per 100k residents compared to Brazil's 19.4 per 100k. Population sizes matter if you are going to compare countries fairly and equally. Criminals typically don't rob people without a weapon and guns are far more effective than knives or other weapons, so yeah..that's common sense and they obtain guns not to just "target civilians", but any crime of opportunity, whether it's a business, bank or citizen. 

    Point three....
    On this we agree

    Good

    Point four 
    Safe but yet you need a gun

    No, I don't actually own a gun at all (yet another assumption), but I support others rights to own them and defend themselves. My dad was Military and owned multiple guns, but luckily never had to use them.

    Point five
    OK apologies for that but the minute an American mentions socialism they're normally a Republican as they never stop going on about commies / reds /socialists 
    I agree again both parties behave like spoiled brats while decent citizens suffer 
    I used to admire the Dems they're a joke now

    I'm glad we can agree on politics a little, but I do fear socialism, not because of republican talking points, but because of socialism in action. It rarely works, mainly because it ends up being a tool of the government for control and/or oppression. On paper socialism looks great, in action you always have people using it in ways that are evil. 


    Point five
    No.worries read above 

    Thanks

    Point six
    The reason I don't mention where I live is because it turns into a comparison game and is unrelated to the topic as this is not about where I live but where you live 
    But yes no citizens carry guns here  only special police units carry guns here ,the beat police carry mace and a baton mace is banned for citizens as are guns and knives

    But it is good to compare societies problems with and without private citizens having the right to own guns. But if you don't want to, that's fine. For example, there are countries that have tried to eliminate guns, or put severe gun control laws in place, like Japan and their number of deaths dropped significantly. So the answer isn't always "Take away guns", it could be like Japan where it's about putting citizens through rigorous courses to obtain a license to own a gun. In any event, it's never good to assume that "Oh this country did this, therefore guns bad/good", you have to actually examine the effects and look at it fairly and logically. 

    You  rarely hear of citizens robbed at gunpoint I know no one it has ever happened to, once in a while a big businessman may suffer such but its a rarity 

    Me either, I've personally never been robbed or even seen a gun in public, or even know anyone who has, but you see of course crimes on the TV and you see the stories about someone either killed by a criminal, or some who shouldn't have a gun killing someone because he wasn't properly certified, or obtained a gun from a friend. Just to be clear, I'm in favor of gun control in that I want people to go through rigorous courses to be certified and harsher sentences for those who abuse the system, but I'm not in favor of completely disarming responsible citizens. 

    I live in a capitalist country with social policies, Americans never get this they automatically assume you cannot have these thing unless you're a Socialist country 

    America is capitalist, but has social policies as well, after all insurance is socialist, whether it's car insurance or health insurance, but our government is not socialist and that is what I do not want. 

    Regards taxes I pay none as a citizen I'm  tax exempt on account of my occupation I've never paid for health cover which I think.is scandalous as govements can easily afford to cover this but of course will deny it

    Good for you! I'd love not to pay taxes! I do think our health system needs a massive reform, but not controlled by the government, just regulated better. Our government again, is corrupt, so them taking over healthcare would be a disaster. Our system isn't perfect by any standard, but you do receive really good healthcare. 

    America spends trillions on a top heavy military when half that money could easily allow citizens very affordable health care yet Americans will fight tooth and nail defending there outrageously expensive healthcare system

    I've heard this for years and I agree we do spend way too much on military, but again, I don't want our government in charge of the healthcare system, I just don't trust them to manage that correctly. 



  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 593 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    Your point is flawed. If criminals get their hands on explosives, then should we be able to buy explosives from our local Scheels? If criminals get their hands on rocket launchers, should we be able to buy them too?
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    @anarchist100

    Your point is flawed. If criminals get their hands on explosives, then should we be able to buy explosives from our local Scheels? If criminals get their hands on rocket launchers, should we be able to buy them too?
    Yes, good peaceful people should be able to buy that which they need to defend themselves from fiends, bombs in the hands of responsible decent people should not be a problem.
  • DeeDee 4846 Pts   -  
    @dallased25

    Ok...except I'm not from the NRA and certainly not a member. Can you stop trying to place me in a bucket? 

    I’m not trying to do that , that’s merely an observation going on the type of thing the NRA would typically say , I didn’t say you were a member 



    I got my stats here: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-violence-by-country
    which does show that the US is 2nd only to Brazil, but it's about concentration as well, because the more population, the more #'s across the board in all categories, which is why you have to scale it to be even. For example the population of Brazil is 214 Million, but the US is 332 Million. So the next stat on that list is "Deaths by gun violence per 100k of residents", because that's statistics 101...not a "spin" and again, we are #18 on that list, which equates to 10.6 deaths per 100k residents compared to Brazil's 19.4 per 100k. Population sizes matter if you are going to compare countries fairly and equally. Criminals typically don't rob people without a weapon and guns are far more effective than knives or other weapons, so yeah..that's common sense and they obtain guns not to just "target civilians", but any crime of opportunity, whether it's a business, bank or citizen. 

    I knew this was coming it’s always the same in a links war and nothing ever gained from it. Well I guess that’s the price Americans pay for the right to carry the chance of being robbed at gunpoint , thankfully it’s something we don’t have to worry about 

    I'm glad we can agree on politics a little, but I do fear socialism, not because of republican talking points, but because of socialism in action. It rarely works, mainly because it ends up being a tool of the government for control and/or oppression. On paper socialism looks great, in action you always have people using it in ways that are evil. 

    Yes I’m not a fan of Socialism so again I agree with you , I’m in favour of social policies that’s all


    But it is good to compare societies problems with and without private citizens having the right to own guns. But if you don't want to, that's fine. For example, there are countries that have tried to eliminate guns, or put severe gun control laws in place, like Japan and their number of deaths dropped significantly. So the answer isn't always "Take away guns", it could be like Japan where it's about putting citizens through rigorous courses to obtain a license to own a gun. In any event, it's never good to assume that "Oh this country did this, therefore guns bad/good", you have to actually examine the effects and look at it fairly and logically. 

    The thing for me is how peaceful a society is , I want to live in a fairly safe peaceful society

     I can never understand how a sizable amount of Americans attempt to normalise massacres and use more palatable language like “ mass shootings “ to take the sting out of it like the equally dishonest “ collateral damage “ as used in wartime shootings by those who attempt to normalise it

    A lot of Americans think schools having armed guards to protect kids is a norm and not a sign of a very sick society

    If guns are in a society it’s very hard to take them out Americans do have a serious problem with guns and no valid solution in sight 
     
    Me either, I've personally never been robbed or even seen a gun in public, or even know anyone who has, but you see of course crimes on the TV and you see the stories about someone either killed by a criminal, or some who shouldn't have a gun killing someone because he wasn't properly certified, or obtained a gun from a friend. Just to be clear, I'm in favor of gun control in that I want people to go through rigorous courses to be certified and harsher sentences for those who abuse the system, but I'm not in favor of completely disarming responsible citizens. 

    Again that’s an entirely sensible approach 



    America is capitalist, but has social policies as well, after all insurance is socialist, whether it's car insurance or health insurance, but our government is not socialist and that is what I do not want. 

    But how effective and good are your social policies? I deal with Americans weekly in business and most say educational costs and healthcare are ridiculous and medical bankruptcy is a possible  Anytime on here I mention a decent minimun wage is a must every American on here goes into a flying rage yet totally defend an employer making massive profits while exploiting his/her workers
    What sort of social affordable  housing is given out in the US ? Is there affordable healthcare and education for those on low incomes? How about social welfare?

    Good for you! I'd love not to pay taxes! I do think our health system needs a massive reform, but not controlled by the government, just regulated better. Our government again, is corrupt, so them taking over healthcare would be a disaster. Our system isn't perfect by any standard, but you do receive really good healthcare. 

    Yes but do you do receive really good healthcare if you’re poor ? It’s a given if you pay top dollar you’re going to get it

    My wife pays into a private scheme I don’t , I needed hospital twice for accidents and got the very same treatments and care as my wife would ever get . I refuse to pay because of the fact every refugee who comes to our country gets it so why shouldn’t I ?
    Governments make more than enough to cover it and this applies in most countries 



    I've heard this for years and I agree we do spend way too much on military, but again, I don't want our government in charge of the healthcare system, I just don't trust them to manage that correctly. 

    That’s a fair point , thanks for the convo it’s good to hear your thoughts 
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 593 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100

    It's a disaster waiting to happen. What's going to stop somebody from just planting one at a store that they don't like? What's to stop them from planting one in their house? What's to stop a person under-18 from getting one?
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • anarchist100anarchist100 713 Pts   -  
    Luigi7255 said:
    @anarchist100

    It's a disaster waiting to happen. What's going to stop somebody from just planting one at a store that they don't like? What's to stop them from planting one in their house? What's to stop a person under-18 from getting one?
    Bombs are incredibly easy to make, you can find instructions online, anyone truly dedicated to causing trouble could already do it, legalizing bombs will only make it so that law abiding people can get their hands on them too.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -   edited November 15
    Luigi7255 said:
    @anarchist100

    It's a disaster waiting to happen. What's going to stop somebody from just planting one at a store that they don't like? What's to stop them from planting one in their house? What's to stop a person under-18 from getting one?
    Strange questions. I can similarly ask: what is going to stop somebody from just dumping dishwashing liquid into soup of someone who I do not like? What is to stop somebody from just taking a kitchen knife and throwing it off the top of a skyscraper into a crowded street? What is to stop somebody from just taking their car, putting a brick on the gas pedal and launching it into a highway?

    The answer is: law and its enforcement. Owning a bomb and not hurting anyone with it poses no problem to anyone. Owning a bomb and hurting someone with it is going to be outlawed regardless of whether bomb purchases are outlawed or not. There is no reason to outlaw victimless behaviors, and behaviors involving victims are already outlawed and will be outlawed.

    More generally, any offense against the society is disincentivized by the natural social forces. You can walk around calling everyone a mofo - but you will reap the social consequences of such behavior, such as extreme ostracizion. Whether the society builds a formal mechanism of addressing aggressive behaviors, or whether it is going to be addressed chaotically on the case-by-case basis - there are always countless reasons why someone would not want to cause extreme disturbance in the society. Such as the one planting a bomb at a disliked store would cause.
  • raisin98raisin98 14 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Why?

    @anarchist100 I don’t understand why arguments like this are made. I mean, we have existing and living proof In practice that shows that more regulations and enforcement of those regulations on violent weapons of destruction do have a major effect on reducing gun violence and bombings, so why do we continue with the argument that these regulations and laws don’t work? They quite literally do. According to the world population review, “the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.” (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country)

    So if our way of doing things has caused so much problems, why are still continuing to hold on to them so dearly, and why do we not at the very least keep guns out of public places and put them in places of recreation designed for guns Instead????  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    raisin98 said:
    @anarchist100 I don’t understand why arguments like this are made. I mean, we have existing and living proof In practice that shows that more regulations and enforcement of those regulations on violent weapons of destruction do have a major effect on reducing gun violence and bombings, so why do we continue with the argument that these regulations and laws don’t work? They quite literally do. According to the world population review, “the United States is the only country examined that shows a propensity for mass shootings. The data itself supports this interpretation, as the United States endured mass shooting events all seven years, but the other countries all experienced mass shootings during only one or two years. Thus, in a typical year, most countries experience zero mass shooting deaths, while the US experiences at least a few.” (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country)
    If you thought this through just a little bit, you would see how this argument makes no sense. The US population is much larger than that of any of those countries, and you have to correct for that for your analysis to mean anything.

    You could, for instance, look at the statistics cited in the middle of the very same page you quoted that shows the number of victims of mass shootings per 1M people:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/mass-shootings-by-country

    For the average across years 2009 to 2015, the US is #11 on the list, doing far better than such countries as Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland and Belgium - countries that have much stricter gun regulations than the US. This does not prove that "gun regulations do not work", but this does demonstrate how blind people get to facts when they want to sell their story and present facts in a misleading way.
    And it makes a lot more sense to use the average than the median when talking about sparse data (i.e. data in which a large fraction of entries are 0-s). Purposeful juggling between the average and the median is a common trick dishonest journalists use to sell their stories. The person who wrote this article even disingenously wrote:
    The median is considered by many statisticians to be better insulated against individual outlier events (such as the Norway massacre) that can skew results. 
    What the author forgot to mention is that these "outlier events" in sparse data are actually the events of interest, the signal. Insulating the statistic from them defeats the whole purpose of the analysis.
  • raisin98raisin98 14 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Sorry for not being specific.

    @MayCaesar Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe that the first table was more so of a counterclaim than anything. It was disproved the further you went down the article. In the second list, which the author proposed was far more accurate and also used data from the world bank, the United States ranked #1. I don’t know if it is right to completely disregard some of the events that happened like the Norway massacre, but regardless the data later points to a different proposition that the United States is the worst with mass shootings. 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @raisin98

    But I just explained why the second table makes little sense statistically: in sparse data, outliers are THE signal, not undesirable datapoints to be discarded, hence median is a bad statistic to use. In this case, it assigns every country other than the US a score of 0. So, I suppose, El Salvador (the most violent country in the world by virtually every metric), due to its relatively small population, is the same as Japan (the least violent country in the world), and the US is infinitely worse than Syria, Congo or Colombia.

    It is just the usual statistical juggling: these people have no idea what the metrics they use actually represent and choose whichever one allows them to create the illusion of their story being supported by the data.
  • raisin98raisin98 14 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar I believe they are talking about developed nations, but anyway I would rather not be the judge of how to interpret the kind of data they process, I will only cite what they said. Regardless, I think even if my use of statistics was wrong, the consensus is that the more regulated of the developed nations (as far as gun violence or destructive weapon usage goes) typically have less violence in regards to those fields. I am merely attempting to establish that point of view with evidence. However, there are many other sources of information that point to that conclusion, and that the United States (among the developed nations) is the worst when it comes to mass shootingsand usage of violent weapons. And even if we’re not, isn’t it better to at least try to limit the violence anyway?
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4800 Pts   -  
    @raisin98

    People can say anything, which is why following the actual reasoning is important: you cannot just cite someone's claim in support of your position without verifying the reasoning behind it.

    Even if the US is statistically worse than the average developed nation (it is by no reasonable statistical metric the worst, from what I know) when it comes to the effects of mass shootings, it does not at all imply the causal connection between the strictness of the gun laws and the prevalence of those effects. Implying that that connection is somehow obvious and acting on it may lead to counterproductive policies that do not accomplish the desirable goal, yet lead to a number of undesirable side effects. Not to mention that even if they did accomplish the desirable goal, they still could have other unintended consequences. 

    So no, it is not at all better to try to limit the violence in such a brutish way without proper investigation of the expected effects of it. As I like to say to illustrate the point in the most extravagant way possible, the best way to absolutely defeat gun violence is to wipe out humanity - and if limiting the gun violence is your central goal, then there is nothing wrong with this solution. Yet anyone would oppose it strongly, which to me suggests that people do not think their goals and means of achieving them through enough.

    The US Federal Code of Regulations has tens of thousands pages in it. The reason for this mess is exactly this kind of thinking: "Here is what change we want the society to have, so let us mandate it directly". Someone does not like it when too much fish is caught? Let us introduce a regulation on this. Someone does not like it how little fish is caught? Let us introduce another one. Then let us hire millions of bureaucrats and lawyers to service all of this. They, of course, will require to get paid, and we do not have that kind of funding - so let us levy higher taxes and borrow more and more money...
    This is no way to go about developing public policy, and gun laws are no exception.
  • jackjack 81 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:

    Anyone is free to do something that does not have a good reason to be done.
    Hello May:

    It's true..  Anyone should be able to walk into a gay nightclub and start murdering its patrons.


    excon


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch