The Instigator
Dilara
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Banning guns is a bad idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,145 times Debate No: 53755
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

Dilara

Con

Criminals will get guns no matter what. They sell drugs and illegal guns to criminals who are banned from getting them so if we ban guns why wouldn't they see this as a chance to make money by selling guns to people? During the prohibition people got alvo even though it was banned and today people get drugs even though they'd also illegal. Good people who obey the law won't get those guns illegally. When those criminals break into our houses, rape, kidnap and murderer us good people with the guns they got illegally or even with out guns we won't be able to defend our selves. Criminals love gun free zones because no one there can stand up to them when they do their illegal activity. It's easy for Obama to want gun control because he has like a thousand body guards but people like us might want protection. Even with out a gun rapist could find a petite, thin women who is not as strong as them and do awfully things and she wouldn't have a gun to defend her self. Banning guns won't make them disappear it will just make it harder for good citizens to defend them selves. In England where they banned guns in 1997 the crime rate rocketed. Homicide rate went up 50% and violent crime rate went up 70%. Gun control advocated still tell us how the uk has less gun crime than us. Yeah they don't kill you with a gun they kill you with a brick. It's the most violent country in Europe ( not counting war torn country's) is that what you want America? Crime started going down in 2003 after they got more cops. It's also absurd that we would be compared to them because they have 60 million people while we have 317 million people. I'm not saying anything bad about England or trying to insult anyone from there. I'd love to visit and it seems really fun and exciting but people please don't go on and on about how great things are there in terms of crime because they have more violent attacks per 100,000 people than us. Same thing with Australia. They have 20 million . We have 300 million more than them so comparing the United States and Australia is a joke!. I'm not trying to make Australia seem bad because the people seem really nice, they have grata wild life and it seems gorgeous. I'm just pointing out the obvious. And have things gone well in other gun free places like Chicago or DC? Of I'm not mistaking isn't chicago I've of the murderer capitals of America? Doesn't chicago have at least 1 murderer per day? Be honest with your self. Would you rather have someone break into your house and rape you or kill the rapist ? Who's more important you or a rapist? Would you rather have someone steal your stuff and sell it for drugs or scare them off with a gun?. I however refuse to be a victim. People can let other people road them nag take their money and even kill them but I'd rather have the murderer be dead than me. If you take away guns people will still kill other people. If they really have their mind set on killing people than they'll do it no matter what. They might use a knife or a plastic bag bit they'll do it. Think about what happened in Connecticut. Adam Lanza was obviously very evil, sick and twisted and planned that whole massacre out. You think he wouldn't have gotten a gun illegally? He killed 20 6 and 7 year old children he probably wouldn't mind buying something illegal. We need access to all guns even fully automatic. If 10 guys are coming at you you can't reload every second you have to kill all of them. You can't take my right to self defense away. I can't use a knife or talk someone out of killing me if it's me or the rapist and murderer I'd rather kill them than be raped and have my body violated and beaten or even murdered and especially if I had a child with me I'd rather have the repost and/or murderer shot and killed than an innocent kid. Also for all the men who are against guns it's easy for them to say because men are usually stronger than women ( not always but usually) and could probably fight back where a women might have a harder time with that especially if it's several guys. Most mass shootings in America have occurred in gun free zones like the aurora Colorado movie theater and sandy hook elementary school. Shooters choose gun free zones because they know no one there can fight back along with other criminals, rapists, kidnappers and murderers. If I'm a criminal I'm going to be more hesitant to rape someone if it's possible they have a gun ( concealed carry states and cities have lower crime rates probably for this reason and because people scare them off with a gun before they can carry out their act) having a sign saying "gun free zone" in places besides day cares, preschools and certain places is a disaster because it's an invitation for people who want to rob, rape and murderer people. There was a case in Connecticut where a man was angry at someone and went to their house where they were having a party and fired several shots. Gun control advocates might say guns were the problem because this man shouldn't have had one-- but another man with a gun saved the sat when he used his gun to decent him self and the other people. Also what about animals? Where I live there are lots of coyotes (not in our city but in the rural areas) that occasionally venture into our neighborhood. While I'm a vegetarian and strong animal rights advocate and would shoot an animal as a last resort I'd still rather shoot the animal than have it eat our cat. For people who love in florida where there are lots of alligators (in florida your more likely to be attacked by an alligator than someone with a conceal and carry permit) or Alaska or Montana where there are very big, aggressive grizzly bear and moose. What about a pack of dogs? Should I kill all 10 dogs with a knife or my hands or a gun? Once again I strongly oppose hunting and I don't even eat meat or wear leather but I still feel my life us more important than an animals. I also feel my life is more important than a rapist and/or murderer. If he breaks in to my house and attempts to rape me (like what occurred several times out west with either man ) I'd rather shoot him or at least kill him off than be raped and beaten. What if a bunch of guys pull up in a big white van and tell me to get in? Am i suppose to become a sex slave or be rapped and murdered because I was denied the right to have a gun by people like piers morgan who don't have to deal with that because they have security and are men not teenage girls? Many girls have been kidnapped and sold to Mexico to be sex slaves and I refuse to be one of them. Many girls are raped and I refuse to be one of them. Many girls are murdered and I refute to be one of them. I am not going to let anyone violate my right to life with a gun or not because some people think all guns should be banned and don't consider these things.i don't think machine guns should be banned but people who say to do so don't really annoy me that much because I do understand their opinion and respect it as well. People who want to ban all guns might as well tell me to ban my right to self defense especially was a female and a teenager. More people due from car accident than guns so should we ban guns? More people die from alcohol each year do should we ban alcohol? More people die from heart attacks each year (if I'm not mistaking it's the leading cause of death In america) so should we ban meat and butter that cause heart attacks ? What about microwaved that cause cancer that kills far more people than guns. Should we ban than along with smoking cigarettes which is also a cause of cancer. Also what about riots. During riots like the ones in Los Angeles in 1992 it was the Korean American shop keepers who used their large guns from rioters. What about what happened in New Orleans Louisiana. In 2005 I believe when that horrible hurricane hit people defended their homes from looters with guns. If your an old lady in Louisiana during a storm stuck in your house should you be robbed?
TheRussian

Pro

Great topic of debate. First, I would like to say that I DO believe people should have guns, BUT I think some restrictions and maybe background checks should be put in place. That said, let's begin.

"When those criminals break into our houses, rape, kidnap and murderer us good people with the guns they got illegally or even with out guns we won't be able to defend our selves."
Let's be honest. It's late at night, a guy breaks into your house. What are your chances of finding your gun, finding the intruder and killing the intruder before he finds and kills you? Slim.

"Criminals love gun free zones because no one there can stand up to them when they do their illegal activity"
I see your point, but almost anywhere (except a gun range) can be considered a gun-free zone. Not many people carry guns around with them.

"Yeah they don't kill you with a gun they kill you with a brick."
The difference is that with a gun, you can kill 20 people in 30 seconds. You cannot do that with a brick.

"Would you rather have someone steal your stuff and sell it for drugs or scare them off with a gun?"
When a person is addicted, risk does not matter. They're on the road to death. Whether or not you have a gun, they will steal to buy drugs. Let's take this to a more general level, stealing in general, regardless of purpose. As stated, not many people carry guns with them, so the risk that the thief is taking is still very small.

"They might use a knife or a plastic bag bit they'll do it."
As mentioned before, you can kill a lot of people in a short period of time with a gun. The opposite can be said with melee and improvised weapons such as those you mentioned.

"We need access to all guns even fully automatic."
Look at how many people can be killed in school shootings for example. Now imagine if they have a machine-gun. The violence and death rate would go up drastically.

"If 10 guys are coming at you you can't reload every second you have to kill all of them."
I agree, but what is the chance that you alone will be confronted with 10 men? Very slim. I cannot think of a single situation where you would be faced with such odds. I do not see why anyone (other than soldiers) would need an automatic weapon.

"I can't use a knife or talk someone out of killing me"
Talk your way out of it? Probably not. Having a knife is a definite chance. Especially in your home where it's close quarters. If he has a gun, you still would not be able to get to yours unless you hide it under your pillow.

"There was a case in Connecticut where a man was angry at someone and went to their house where they were having a party and fired several shots."
This is an example of a situation in which having gun control is good. People (especially those with mental/anger issues) will get angry or moody and may not be able to control themselves. They will kill out of anger. If there was gun control, they wouldn't have a gun to do that with in the first place.

"Where I live there are lots of coyotes (not in our city but in the rural areas) that occasionally venture into our neighborhood. While I'm a vegetarian and strong animal rights advocate and would shoot an animal as a last resort I'd still rather shoot the animal than have it eat our cat. For people who love in florida where there are lots of alligators (in florida your more likely to be attacked by an alligator than someone with a conceal and carry permit) or Alaska or Montana where there are very big, aggressive grizzly bear and moose. What about a pack of dogs? Should I kill all 10 dogs with a knife or my hands or a gun"
Attacks (on humans or their animals) a very rare. Even if a coyote's intent was eating your cat, the coyote would accomplish that. Unless you go everywhere with your gun, your cat would be in ribbons before you got your gun. Alligators can run up to 9 mph on land for short distances, meaning not only is it a hard target to hit if it's mad, but you also have little time to do it. Especially if it's moving, your chances of shooting and killing the alligator before it gets to you are zero. Not only does it have a thick skull, but even if you do hit the head, chances of hitting the brain and killing it are even smaller because the brain itself is very small. Bears? Search up stories of bear attacks online. A bear probably won't attack you, but if it does, you won't kill it. My opponents "defense against animals" argument above is almost impractical. These occur very rarely.
http://www.csmonitor.com...
http://howtokillthings.com...
https://www.google.com...

My opponent mentions riots killing people. If everyone had guns, then riots would be even more dangerous because all of the "participants" are armed. Violence would skyrocket.

Many points that my opponent makes (like the sex-slaves to Mexico one) are not only very rare and unlikely, but even with a gun, you would not be able to defend yourself. In order for my opponents idea to work, everyone will have to carry guns at all times, be very well trained and sleep with one under their pillow. This is unrealistic.

Let's take a look at numbers. A researcher found that in the US, states with stricter gun control laws have much less gun-related violence. Also, more guns means more homicide and murderers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Now let's compare countries with guns and how violent they are versus countries without guns and how violent they are.
The US has about 89 guns per 100 people. That means that the US should have the "safest" citizens because they can protect themselves from rapists, murderers etc. right? Apparently not. A study showed that the US has more gun-related deaths than any other developed country in the world. 10 people per 100,000 die from a bullet. Japan, on the other hand, only has 0.6 guns per 100 people, and, not surprisingly, only 0.06 deaths per 100,000 from a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...

Although my opponent's argument seems to make logical sense, it is invalid. Experience shows that the more guns a country has, the more violence there is.

In most cases of shootings, the shooter has mental problems. This suggests that even if there is a risk that someone might have a gun, the shooter will still go for it. On the other hand, if guns were banned (or kept away from people with mental/psychological problems) the chances of them obtaining one and using it are smaller. The simple fact that "the more guns, the more violence" refutes any argument my opponent can make about self-defense. In many of the examples my opponent provided, using a gun to defend yourself is impractical because your opponent has a large advantage by already having a weapon in their hands.

Guns are unnecessary and restrictions should be put in place about their ownership. More people die because there are more guns. Why should we add even more?

I would also like to note that although my opponent gave some statistics, absolutely no sources were provided.
Debate Round No. 1
Dilara

Con

Thanks for your input. I respect and understand what you have to say and you even beat me on some argument some I strongly disagree with.
1 even though people may not find their guns in the middle of the night in some cases they do. Some people choose to keep their gun besides or underneath their bed or in a safe locked up in a closet. Guns save lives.com has over a thousand stories of times people have defended them selves with guns. I recommend checking out that web site and clicking on browse stories. You'll be amazed at how many there are.
2 the one about the brick
I understand that a gun can kill more people than a brick or knife but can't gas and matches should we ban them.
3 I understand the machine gun point as well. I think before getting an automatic gun you should go through at least one back round check and it probably would be a good idea to check everyone the person loves with. A law obeying citizen should be able to own one as long as it's not a threat to anyone else.
4 about the CN shooting at the party I understand s your point but keep in mind that if that person really wanted a gun he would be able to get one no matter what. Meth is illegal but people who want one can still get it right? So if that guy really wanted a gun he could get them no matter what the laws are.
5 I understand your point about the alligators and coyotes but there are plenty of times people defend them selves from animals (guns save lives.com) an alligator from what I know can't make good turns so it would be possible to get one that way. My uncle lives in MN and is a cop. When he hikes he brings a gun in case of moose and bear as well as bear spray. He's been a cop for years and is a nice trustable guy so Shouldn't he be able to have one.
6about the riots. It windows be possible there found be a disaster like that but it's also possible the person could shoot the shooter right away.
7 I understand your logic but according to I think it was home office.com and an FBI site and multiple other sites England saw a dramatic increase in crime after they banned guns. They have more murderes than any other places in Europe and babe a higher homicide rate than the us. Chicago and dc are city's with strict gun control and they have many murderes compared to other places with conceal carry laws. I understand that more gun equals more gun crime but clearly more guns does not equal more crime and less guns does not equal more crime over all. In that case chicago and dc should be the safer than other cities but because of their guns laws they have very high crime rates.
8 maybe having a gun is impractical in some cases but in many where the racist who rape you in an ally or the their who breaks into your house doesn't have a gun it's best to have one.
Thank you for debating with me.
TheRussian

Pro

By the way....Welcome to Debate.org! :) I noticed you were new. Now let's begin.

"in a safe locked up in a closet. Guns save lives.com has over a thousand stories of times people have defended them selves with guns"
They will be safely locked in a closet, where you have to find your key, quietly unlock the safe, pull out and load your gun before trying to find your opponent. I see your point though. I checked out your website, and that is truly inspiring BUT the negatives still outweigh the positives. As mentioned, even though America has by the far the most guns, it has by far the most gun-violence. A study showed that situations like these are very rare and even in those which do happen, only 0.00853% of the time leads to the attacker dying. This means that almost all the gun-violence deaths are the attacker killing someone, not the defender successfully defending himself. Studies have also shown that, surprisingly, gun ownership is on a slow decline. Even though it is declining, criminal attempts have also decreased by a whopping 30%-40%. This correlation suggests that more guns do not mean less crime and supports my previous claim that, in fact, more guns means more gun violence and death.
http://www.cnn.com...
http://www.cnn.com...

"I understand that a gun can kill more people than a brick or knife but can't gas and matches should we ban them."
No we shouldn't because people typically do not use matches and gas as a weapon. Instead, they decide to guy guns instead of gas and matches because using a gun to kill someone is a much more efficient way.

"you should go through at least one back round check and it probably would be a good idea to check everyone the person loves with. A law obeying citizen should be able to own one as long as it's not a threat to anyone else."
I agree, background checks should be put in place but authorities don't know who "law obeying" citizens are. For example, to get a car you must go through a driving test right? Yet people still make mistakes by maybe driving angrily or driving drunk. The same sort of things may happen even to "law obeying" gun owners, meaning simply doing background checks is not enough.

"if that person really wanted a gun he would be able to get one no matter what"
The may be true, but there are many factors in his way. Not only would he be much more hesitant, but getting a gun illegally (just like getting meth illegally) would not be an easy, quick process. Illegal guns would be sold for a high price and in the process of finding communications, signing contracts, buying the gun, and keeping it out of sight the chances of the criminal being found and jailed are high. There would be a lot of steps to try to get a gun illegally, and all of them are an opportunity to get caught.

"there are plenty of times people defend them selves from animals (guns save lives.com)"
There may be, but as mentioned above, negatives outweigh the positives. Plus, many times the people most likely provoked the animal, whatever it may be. Animals don't usually attack humans for no apparent reason.

"the person could shoot the shooter right away."
Yes, the people who are trying to control the riot may be able to fire a couple shots before they are overwhelmed by an angry mass of people with guns. The destruction and death count of a highly armed riot would be enormous. Take a look at recent Ukraine for example. As soon as they angry mobs started getting weapons, it pretty much turned into a civil war.

"I understand that more gun equals more gun crime but clearly more guns does not equal more crime and less guns does not equal more crime over all"
That was a confusing sentence. More guns means more crime, as shown by the data I gave. In specific examples (like Chicago as you mentioned), guns may be better, but on a national and global scale, the countries with more guns generally have more violence.

"in many where the racist who rape you in an ally or the their who breaks into your house doesn't have a gun it's best to have one."
Yes, if the defender has a gun, the rapist may not be so keen to do what he came for, BUT if guns are allowed, the rapist may have a gun as well. That does not improve the situation at all. Plus, there are many other methods of defending yourself other than pulling out a firearm, from martial arts to knives.

You may compare guns to cars and other things that cause deaths (like gas and matches that you mentioned above) but the comparison is faulted because in our world, cars are pretty much necessary. Guns are not.
Debate Round No. 2
Dilara

Con

Thanks !!!!
Some people keep guns all ready loaded (not a good idea if you have pets of kids) so they can simply grab it and be ready while some people keep them under the bed, in a drawer next to their bed ecc so it is easier to reach if you need it. 4 years ago my mom heard a noise outside our house. We live In a middle class safe neighberhood with good people (and a sex offender who lives not to far--a mother reason we should get a gun) my dad went to he window to look and saw a big white van speed away and my dad called the police. It turned out that two men had robbed our elderly neighborhoods from across the street. They heard bumping but they're both very old and didn't confront the men because they were scared. If they had a gun maybe they could have confronted them before they took their stuff. Luckily they were convicted criminals and after my dad called the cops hey we're able to catch the men and get our neighbors their stuff back(they had an old radio that was very special to them that got broken) what if those people weren't non smart trash (my dad saw them in court) but weird pevertedbsmart people who intended on doing much worse things? What if their grand children had Ben there? I think a gun would have kept th safe.
I would disagree that negatives outway positives. I think their can be a middle ground where guns are not to easy to get but not so restricted so that law obeying people can't defend them selves.
About the cars. I car is 1000 pounds. It's more dangerous than a gun. One can use a gun to defend them selves with wry little knowledge of it but to drive a car you have to have taken classes or at least watched your parents drive. Driving is vey scary and nerve racking because your constantly in motion. You can simple hold a gun and have nothing go wrong and you don't have to watch signs and other drivers ect. Plus more people die Ina car accidents than gun accidents.
In mos cases with back round checks you can tell if the person is a criminal or mentally Ill very soon. Just because there are criminals doesn't mean good people have their rights taken away.
Animals can be very unpredictable. People should know not to let them or get to close (when we were in MN 11 years ago we were in our car waiting for the bison to pass and peope were getting out and taking pics and were very close to them good thing nothing happened but if it did my uncle could have used his gun) some animals like dogs and moose are unpredictable and you may simple be in your backyard (my relatives in MN have moose in those yard SMS times) or something you need to have a gun. When my cousin in PA was little she was in the back seat of a car while my ain't went to grab something and when my aunt came back a small black bear was sticking it's head in the car after the food my aunt was able to yell and scream and make the bear go away. Thankfully everything was fine nuts at if the bar tried to get my cousin? My ain't couldn't have wrestled the bear. She would have needed a gun.
M half Crimean Tatar and I have distant relatives in Ukraine. We're all scared for them because of all the riots and it would make seance for them to have a gun to defend them selves (from pro Russians mobs) if I were surrounded by a mob that was going crazy if want a gun.
About the rapist,knives and martial art. My cousin (same one from the bear story) has a black belt in karate and taught me and my sister some sc defense moves so I'm familiar but karate or a knife would be a match for a 6 foot gal man or several of them with a gun (that they would have gotten illegally cause they're rapists they disobey the law) or even with out a gun. Especially if your a teen girl. In my city a 13 year old was raped behind a vacant house by a 36 year old man. She couldn't use martial arts or a knife or pepper spray. She probably needed a gun.
About the confusing quote. I meant less guns doesn't equal less crime( uk and chicago example)
Thanks
TheRussian

Pro

"If they had a gun maybe they could have confronted them before they took their stuff"
Although that is a possibility, confronting them also puts the lives of the defenders at stake.

"It's more dangerous than a gun. One can use a gun to defend them selves with wry little knowledge of it"
Yes, one can use it to defend himself/herself with little knowledge, but that also means that one can use it to attack and kill others with little experience.

"You can simple hold a gun and have nothing go wrong and you don't have to watch signs and other drivers ect. Plus more people die Ina car accidents than gun accidents."
That is false. In the US, there are about 43, 000 casualties each year from car accidents. However, there are annually
100, 000 casualties from a bullet. This is an enormous amount and is more than twice the casualty rate by car. Doing the math, that's about 11 people per hour being shot.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...

"a small black bear was sticking it's head in the car after the food my aunt was able to yell and scream and make the bear go away. Thankfully everything was fine nuts at if the bar tried to get my cousin? My ain't couldn't have wrestled the bear. She would have needed a gun."
Bears (when near humans) usually scavenge for food in trailers, cars etc. The chances of your cousin being actually attacked by the bear are minimal. In 2012, there was only ONE death from a bear attack.
http://www.statisticbrain.com...

"seance for them to have a gun to defend them selves (from pro Russians mobs) if I were surrounded by a mob that was going crazy if want a gun."
Although I see your point, it is slightly flawed. If your relatives were to have guns, the mob would see your relatives as a threat and would try to hurt them. Confronting a threat with a gun always puts the "confronter's" life at risk because the "confronted" may retaliate or try to eliminate the threat.

"has a black belt in karate and taught me and my sister some sc defense moves so I'm familiar but karate or a knife would be a match for a 6 foot gal man"
Martial arts definitely help (I've been training for about 6 years now). A knife is more than a match for a man. One effective stab and he's pretty much done. Let's imagine if you both have guns. If you tried to pull out your weapon, that would give him a reason to shoot you. Not the best scenario.

To sum up my arguments, I believe guns (esp. in such large amounts) are an unnecessary threat. Statistics show that the more guns, the more death and violence from guns. This is my argument in a nutshell. There is little practical use for them (unless you are a hunter or maybe soldier). Even in self defense, although having a gun may increase your chances, it also instantly makes you a threat and gives the attacker(s) a reason to hurt/kill you.

Thank you for the good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
Then explain it even more clearly.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Chill out. You did not understand my point, and repeated it. I reworded so you maybe you would understand but you obviously didn't. As mentioned, I am no longer interested in debating this with you in the comment section.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
WTF are you talking about?

That's what I LITERALLY SAID. Your just copying what I am saying and putting it in your own words.

"It LITERALLY shows the homicides per capita below the homicide rate per year ON THE DATA for virtually EVER country. You cannot be more serious right now." my exact quote.

Your basically saying "per capita doesn't matter" because you said "It makes no difference that the US has more people, gun death per capita it is a ratio. " Not only that, but you're also basically saying that as long as homicides aren't committed by guns, it's no big deal. It doesn't matter if a homicide was done by a firearm or not. My point is, you can still have a high homicide rate without any guns. Russia proves that point.

Serbia is under the "developing category". It's far more advanced than any underdeveloped country. Not only that, but what does the fact that it isn't fully developed mean to this debate? You keep going on about that but you haven;'t explained why it matters? It's like your making the argument that they have a lower homicide rate because they aren't as developed lol
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
First off, stop being obnoxious.
Second, gunpolicy.com DOES compare per capita. I do not see where you are going with that argument.
Showing me pictures what is supposedly Serbia does not tell me anything. That is not how you determine underdeveloped/developed countries. There are a certain "list" of categories that make a developed country, and Serbia does not fit those requirements.

There is no point in further continuing this argument because I do not argue with those who cannot control their temper, and we obviously don't understand each other.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
The population of Russia is about half the U.S. So clearly comparing overall homicide rates between the countries wouldn't be fair. That is why there is something called per capita (in this case, 100k).

Russia has nearly double the number of homicides PER 100k compared to the United States. That means there is more crime in a given area in Russia than in the U.S. It amazes me you have such a good debating record if you don't even understand something as simple as how per capita works.

Russia has a population of about 143 million people while the U.S has a population of around 310 million people. Russia's homicide rate is only 2,000 lower meanwhile the U.S has over DOUBLE the population of Russia.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
I really am confused what you are saying. The link is "gun policy.org" The title of the page title is (whatever country) - Gun facts, Figures and the Law. The statistics within the website show countries homicide rates per capita, by weapons in general, or most of the time also showing just gun homicides.

I don't understand what argument you are making here.

And no, you are wrong. Serbia is not "under developed." They have a poverty rate of about 9.2 which is far below under developed nations. (lower than Russia and Russia is considered developed.) I will post photos of so called "underdeveloped" Serbia to prove they are not.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com...
http://venturevillage.eu...
http://image.shutterstock.com...

I can send more if you like, but tell me, how is Serbia possibly under developed? They have a government, laws, a military and police force. Your argument that they are "underdeveloped" is making my argument stronger. Your saying an underdeveloped country (which guns being legal and also having a low homicide rate) is a bad example. I think it makes it an even BETTER example then. However, it isn't underdeveloped. It isn't as developed as the United States but clearly it's current development has no effect on it's homicide rate.

"The website that I provided does compare homicides per capita. It makes no difference that the US has more people, gun death per capita it is a ratio. " This shows how incompetent you are. It LITERALLY shows the homicides per capita below the homicide rate per year ON THE DATA for virtually EVER country. You cannot be more serious right now.

So AGAIN, stop focusing on the overall number of homicides in a country. You need data that can work with countries with different populations (cont)
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Yes, Russia does not record gun deaths, but Russia's homicide rate is smaller than America's homicide-by-gun rate alone.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
@USN276, I am not wasting your time. In fact, I used the exact same website as your for those statistics. It explicitly says: "Total number of gun deaths", which is soon followed by more specific facts such as "Handgun homicides".

You are making aggressive claims with no sources.

Serbia is not a developed country. I'm not "making stuff up", you are just clinging to facts that are wrong, but since you can't take them back, you continue to support them. You are once again making aggressive claims with no backing. This is a list of developed countries and Serbia is not on it.
http://www.trademap.org...

The website that I provided does compare homicides per capita. It makes no difference that the US has more people, gun death per capita it is a ratio. In fact, the US has a higher homicide by gun per capita rate than Russia has homicide per capita. That means that the amount of death-by-gun per capita alone in the US is higher than all-homicides per capita in Russia.
http://www.gunpolicy.org...
http://www.gunpolicy.org...

I do not see how my arguments are flawed. You just need to do a bit of research because at the moment, your arguments have no support.

I have not changed my mind, but answer your question, no I am not playing devil's advocate. I think people should have guns but in smaller amounts, with restrictions/background checks.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
@therussian, please tell me you have read what I explained to you and that I have changed your mind on the subject?
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
USN276
GUN DEATHS? Please don't waste my time. Can you please show me where you got a statistic that said "gun homicides?" You don't read your data correctly. Russia doesn't record the number of gun homicides. They only record homicides in general. Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia count gun homicides separately and in homicides in general and gun homicides make up a small percent of homicides there. If those countries do, most likely Russia has a low GUN homicide rate. Point AGAIN is you don't need firearms to be legal and you don't need them present in order to have a high homicide rate. The fact that you told me this misinformation probably tells me you have a'lot of errors in your argument against Dilara.

Also, Serbia is a developed country. You're making more stuff up. And if it wasn't a developed country, it would only prove my point more that you don't need guns to have a high homicide rate because Serbia has a'lot of guns and also has a low homicide rate.

I would also like to point out that the U.S has a population twice the size of Russia. What should be compared is homicides per capita. Russia has just under 10 homicides per 100k meanwhile America has 4.5 homicides per 100k About 10 years ago, Russia had 20 homicides per 100k. (just a fun fact)

Face it, you're arguments are flawed.

Now, I'm just curious. Are you playing devils advocate or do you actually support a ban on firearms?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Comrade_Silly_Otter 2 years ago
Comrade_Silly_Otter
DilaraTheRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gets better conduct since his paragraphs where not all glued together. Pro managed to take down most if not all of Con's arguments. Then supplied sources to back up his.
Vote Placed by Mangani 2 years ago
Mangani
DilaraTheRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: My first criticism to Pro would be that he did not argue the premise at all. In fact, he conceded it in his opening argument. With that said, the voting is not about being right or wrong, nor is it simply about the premise. I agreed with the Con before and after the debate "BANNING" guns is a bad idea. I consider bad grammar bad conduct, so I gave both points to Pro. Con has terrible grammar, and writes in incoherent runon sentences consistently. Pro obviously had the more convincing arguments. Of course, they were in favor of a slightly adjusted premise that no restrictions to gun ownership are a bad idea. I accept this adjustment, and his arguments were convincing, and supported by sources. Con made no attempt to make a rational rebuttal, and never presented a logical position.