The right to stay alive is more important than the right to own a gun
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8zvdWF-9s public safety is more important than a dubious hobby https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8zvdWF-9s
Ok, but should people be able to defend themselves. How do I defend myself from someone much larger who has a knife or crowbar? How do women defend themselves from rapists? They need a gun.
Our problem is obviously gun smuggling. In only 18% of gun crimes, the legal gun owner committed the crime. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
I was referring to gang violence. The list you showed just includes gang activity. Maybe in Italy, they have more racketeering and property damage?
Oh, the Cartel, eh? "Mexico has extremely restrictive laws regarding gun possession." It is almost like gangs will break the law and get guns illegally even with strict laws.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico
Perhaps you could mention where you disagree with our current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
As for self defense "In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense." http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/
How many people can a criminal kill with a knife before being stopped or getting exhausted? How likely are the victims to be dead instead of injured from a knife? Now compare that to pistols, then clmpare both of those to large clip semi auto. Nothing we do will stop crime completely, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try to minimize the body count. What is the fatality count of British stabbings? Point and click killings are the problem. Without guns, killing would be much more difficult, exhausting, and visceral.
As for gangs. 1) you meauring an absolute value rather then per capita. We have the land and population of all of western europe combined. (Italy still beats us on gang violence tho).
2. A bunch of tiny gangs dont hold a candle to something like a single mexican cartle with military weapons and control of of whole towns and provinces. The crime in america is greatly exxagerated by fear mongers like the POTUS. It certainly exists, but it is consistently going down. Economic justice may be a better solution to crime then more armed altercations or police enforcement.
My ineffective self defense and constitutional question were my original points. I feel like both were avoided.
if I didn't have a midterm and a panic attack i would do this
So is that a yea or nay on the Kritik?
Guns aren't the problem. Britain got rid of guns, now they have stabbings. Now they are trying to ban knives. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/09/london-mayor-knife-control/500328002/
Obviously the tool used is not the problem.
And you will notice that those countries with worse gang problems typically(not always) higher rates of gun violence/homicide. In the EU, there are far less gangs than the US.
We have 33,000 violent street gangs, sir.
The rate of defensive gun use is six times larger than that of criminal use. Lots of other good pro-gun facts here as well.
Yeah, i highly doubt that gang claim:
And gangs would be much less of a problem if they didn't have so many guns. Where do you think they get their guns?
My main point was not the graph but my argument regarding how useless guns are in a self defense situation.
I agree with this resolution.
Which specific graph were you referring to? If it was that we have more homicide per 100,000, that is because we have a lot more gangs. The vast majority of gun crimes aren't committed by legal gun owners. If you need sources, I can grab them.
Technically speaking, most constitutional rights are rights from, not rights to. Like the right from unjust search and seizure, the right from persecution over religion or speech.
Also, most studies show you are in more danger if your armed as your gun is probably holstered with safety on as the mugger points his gun at you... and if its a mass shooting at an *unsuspecting* crowd... the gun wont help you much.
And then there is the question of the wording/meaning of the 2nd ammendement.
A debate like this basically demands a Kritik.
They are the same thing. How do you think you enforce your right to live?
Can I Kritik?