Gun Control

I am against gun control, but I would like your opinions.

cowboy0108: I'm for gun control, for much the same reason as I'm for controlling who has access to nuclear weapons. I don't draw the line at how many people the weapon kills, but whether it's designed to kill at all, because I consider every death to be tragic.

I know of course that there are some responsible hunters and such, and sure, they can have guns, but only in a controlled way to ensure guns don't land in the hands of those who want to kill others.

admin: I understand the viewpoint that guns are meant to kill. I, however, consider guns tools. Whether they be tools for hunting, sport, or defense, they are tools. They make the job easier. Yes, guns also make it easier to kill, but if you take away the guns, criminals will use knives or make bombs to do damage while the citizens have nothing to defend themselves with because criminals always have an upper hand. I feel like gun ownership can balance the odds for the victim of the crime.

cowboy0108: I've never understood the viewpoint that says it's not as bad to commit a crime if the victim had a chance to defend themselves. Statistically, the USA and Somalia have the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. It's not like those countries have amazingly low murder rates because everyone runs around with guns - Somalia is high, USA is average. And then it's like - oh sure, it's tragic all those people were shot, but hey, they had guns in their pocket, maybe they should have used them and turned it into a shootout. That would even the odds! I think it's a Wild West mentality that kinda doesn't work. The real issue isn't who has the pointiest stick, but who does the poking.

I don't consider a gun a tool of defense. Maybe a shield or body armor is a tool of defense, but a gun won't stop a bullet, it will fire it. At best you can pre-emptively strike the killer and become a murderer yourself. Or maybe the killer will be scared of you if you're such a tough guy running around with guns (which incidentally is why I also don't understand concealed carry laws).

Again, I wouldn't favor taking away guns entirely. It should be a privilege to bear arms granted to those who understand how to use them properly and safely IMO, rather like driving a car. It should not be a right. It won't stop criminals, just like licenses don't entirely stop underage driving, but it makes it harder for them, because guns are easy, quick and lethal compared with other weapons.

admin: I don't like using Somalia as a point here... they got all of there freedom to do whatever pretty quickly, rather than having it as a gradual thing, which creates dire problems with the implementation.

Nerd Politico: It's a tough case in a debate, but it's also my honest personal opinion. If holding guns doesn't lower the crime rate in a country where everybody hates each other, it won't lower the crime rate in the US. China's a country with very few firearms and a low homicide rate, Japan has few but a high homicide rate. So firearms don't make a difference, which is why I don't buy the whole "defense" line of reasoning.

In terms of the actual implementation, of course you're right. One law does not fit all. But in general my point is that we should try to control access to guns to give them to responsible people.

admin: 1. Your logic is dependent upon what you consider "murder"
2. Body armor is a tool of defense, but the shooter will still know you are wearing armor and aim for the head or use a knife to take out another spot. The best way I can consider to ensure a victim's survival is to arm them so that they have a chance in the matter. Remember, bullets are faster than you are, don't even try to outrun them.
3. Yes it is a matter of who does the poking. However, you cannot stop a person from trying to poke you, you can prevent the poking from killing you though.
4. I can agree with ClassicRobert on this, Somalia is a bad example for this. Apples and oranges.
5. Criminals will always be criminals. If they do not have guns, they will use other weapons. Criminals also have the upper hand as the victim often plays on the criminal's terms. The victim has to have an upper hand, which is a gun.

cowboy0108: 1. I consider murder to be the willful killing or another human being. Manslaughter is when you didn't mean it. It's hard to operate a firearm without meaning to operate it, but it has happened.

2. Umm, right. I'm not faster than a speeding bullet, sure . So anyway, how does being able to kill the shooter give me a chance given that I don't want to kill anyone, including them? A gun I don't use is as useful as a toy gun, so wouldn't that be a safer alternative to the same effect?

3. We agree here, which is good. So perhaps we can take this a step further and agree that the best way is to make sure people with pointy sticks should be checked out before we give them pointy sticks. That way who does the poking can in some way be controlled, even if it's not perfect.

4. What would you consider to be a good example? I mean, the point is that high gun ownership rates does not cause a low homicide rate. Even if we take out Somalia my point holds true.

5. Can you explain to me how having a gun gives me an upper hand? Or how having an upper hand while I'm being murdered is a good thing?

admin: 1. I consider murder to be the unjustified, willful killing of another human being. This is different definitions and the whole thing is really opened for interpretation.
2. I you are not willing to kill another person regardless of what their intentions are, that is your decision. However, I must ask, how can you speak for anyone other than yourself when you make this claim? In other words, just because you wouldn't kill does not mean that I wouldn't kill. If you would rather die than kill a criminal who is intent on killing you, that is your choice, but please, do not make it my choice too.
3. Yes, I do believe that we should keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and violently insane people. This should be done to the best of our ability, but it should still not impose upon the right for a "normal" person to own a gun.
4. I could compare the violent crime rates of Illinois to that of Indiana and see that Indian's violent crime rate is lower even though these states are located right beside each other. I could look at Tennessee and Washington D.C. and see that Tennessee's violent crime rates are lower even though it has few gun restrictions. If you were going to make a comparison, I would advocate making a comparison between two relatively similar countries in terms of development, population, and economy. Somalia and America is not a good comparison since their are so many different factors that must be considered in your comparison.
5. If a criminal comes at you with a knife, they planned the event. You are, therefore, playing by their rules. This gives them the advantage. In order to survive, the victim must possess a weapon that can ensure that they can neutralize the advantage of the criminal. In most cases, a gun is the best way to do this. And, for the record, having the upper hand while you are being murdered is a good thing because you just may not get murdered.

cowboy0108: In regards to 3, you have to first establish who the normal people are. Increased and universal background checks are pretty much the only ways to do this.

cowboy0108: 1. Unjustified is an interesting qualifier. Osama Bin Laden had a 4 point, 30 subpoint justification for 9/11. Hitler wrote a whole book justifying killing Jews that's still in print.

2. I really don't get this. Somebody will die either way. You'd prefer to be responsible for that death than not? Doesn't seem like a rational choice unless you want to be responsible for a death, in which case your killing is unjustified because you don't know if the other guy would have actually shot you. Hey, he might be holding a toy gun. This is assuming the whole Mexican standoff thing of course again, but hey, it's an interesting moral argument.

3. Why should gun ownership be a right any more than, say, car ownership? Seems weird to me, as a non-American, that to own guns is a right but cars is a privilege.

4. OK then, let's take the US as a whole between states: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/ (that's not to say I agree with the assessment - just because confounding variables cause crime doesn't mean you can't isolate one variable that reduces it)

5. Right, so to neutralise the advantage of holding a weapon, you should hold a weapon. That's not neutralising because it doesn't remove the threat of the original weapon, it merely adds an additional threat into the equation, so the danger of the situation is compounded as opposed to eliminated. Again, personal protection does exist if you want to walk around in plate mail all the time. I also just don't see how holding a gun will stop a criminal shooting you. Once you're shot, it's going to be pretty hard for you to shoot them back. Better yet, don't give them guns at all.

I would do a debate on this once my nuclear one is over

admin: In that case, I will save any future arguments for the actual debate. Just tell me if you want me to start the debate or if you want to invite me to the debate.

I'm for gun control. But I don't believe in a total ban of all guns. Gun control has been shown to work

"The present study, based on a sample of eighteen countries, confirms the result of previous work based on the 14 countries surveyed during the first International Crime Survey. Substantial correlations were found between gun ownership and gun-related as well as total homicide and suicide rates. Widespread gun ownership has not been found to reduce the likelihood of fatal events committed with other means. Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide." -The International Crime Victim Survey [ http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf]


I would agree that some small sample results may seem to show gun control fails. But it's important to have a large sample size, so let's look at the largest gun study ever done.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

That is a peer reviewed study using data from all 50 states from the years of 1981-2010. They found “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,”that “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

Defense is important. Guns in a modern society, however, are unnecessary. Guns should be replaced with non-lethal alternatives, which are just as effective. They can be gradually bought up, rather than banned. In the very least, we should have background checks.

Although, taking away people's guns is not an important issue for me. Taking away the government's guns is.

admin: I think you got that backwards--Japan generally is considered to have a low homicide rate.

FREEDO: Provided those alternatives would be effective, I'm all for it.

It's also my position on energy. We should get alternative energy, but only if it works.

100% agree with background checks.

Did this debate ever happen? I would liked to have seen that one...

nzlockie: Not sure if cowboy's still really around.

cowboy0108: I like shooting, it's my biggest hobby, I'm against gun control.

Anyways, there is no such thing.

admin: Wait, why are deaths tragic?