The right to stay alive is more important than the right to own a gun
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
METHODS:
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Gun are dangerous a gun in the home increases your chances of being hurt not decreases http://money.com/money/4389610/gun-ownership-low/
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.
Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.
Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469."
guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Pro lacks his own case, so plagiarizes. This issue is compounded by him repeatedly being told how to properly present things in a non-plagiarized form. The issue is bad enough that he can't even think of defense when a source is challenged, as con does.
Conduct to Con-Pro copies his sources verbatim with no quotation marks repeatedly, this is poor conduct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments:For R1 Pro merely points to the danger of guns without tying that into the resolution at all. Con states that the methodology of Pro's source is faulty, and cites a source which observes the whole of the US which shows guns are useful at protecting citizens. Con ties this into the resolution by effectively stating, that the right to own a gun protects the right to stay alive. Pro largely just restates his R1 in R2, using the same study that was rebutted by Pro.
In short, Pro relied on 1 study that showed guns were doing more harm then good to prove his point, when a more respectable study was proposed that showed that guns were good for protecting citizens, Pro never touches this. Con largely stated that the right to own a gun protects your right to life, which also goes untouched. In order for Pro to win he must prove that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun, he merely attempts to do this by citing a study that Pro debunked and with his counter evidence proved guns were useful for protecting people. Pro doesn't prove what he needed to in order to win the debate.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✗ ✗ ✔
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✗ ✔
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.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/violent-crime/gangs
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.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/
Yeah, i highly doubt that gang claim:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/wef-countries-worst-organised-crime-problems-gangs-mafia-2017-11
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.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/23/17155596/gun-ownership-polls-safety-violence
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?