When you take the right of the people to have a gun, you automatically take their right of self-defense from bandits that have guns. It's been proved that a armed bandits are more likely to not invade houses of people who have guns, just the fact of hearing a cocking of a weapon makes them avoid your house, you don't even have to shoot. And here I end my argument to someone who have another point of view. Thanks.
With rights come responsibilities. I don't believe in complete civilian disarmament, however we should step up the precautions with regard to sales, permits, use, child safety, etc.. Because this is a political hotbed, data is often manipulated. One undisputed truth is the relatively high ratio, approximately 1:20, of shootings related to murder, suicide, assault, and accidents, to that relating to self defense. In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. Zero mass shootings were prevented by armed citizens.
Owning a gun provides a sense of security and empowerment but the odds are consistently against a gun actually being fired as protection. As a society, we pay a much higher price by uncontrolled and unregulated gun ownership, than the alternative. I would support disarmament over uncontrolled and unregulated gun possession/ownership.
I actually agree with you about a better control of guns, and when I say civilian I mean, a responsible and sane person that contributes with society. As far as I know there are tests to know if the person that is buying a gun is a sane person. And of course about child safety its all about a gun education, you have to get your kids use to guns and teach about the precautions he/she may take when holding a gun (like never keep your finger on the trigger or always keep your weapon down or never aim at someone, not even if it is unloaded etc.). And when I talk about having a gun I don't mean walking around with a pistol in your pocket, I mean having a gun in you house, sorry for not specifying my argument. Of course there are few cases of self defense acts, and that is because also few people walk with a weapon on the pocket, and when you say that there are more cases of murder in arguments than in self defense acts I don't get it why you brought this to our debate because so there are more in car accidents. The mass shootings could be prevented (prevent is don't even let something happen) with more parents responsibility and gun control and actually there are cases of mass shootings that were stopped by armed civilians, here are the links http://controversialtimes.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://gunwatch.blogspot.com.br...
I was actually searching for someone who is totally against civil disarmament but we are having a nice debate buddy :). Could you send me the sources that were used in your argument? Thanks
As much as I would like to continue this debate, I must step away. I just joined this site yesterday and this is my first uninitiated debate. I realize now, the formality of the debates posted on this website. As for the subject at hand, I cannot make an argument for civilian disarmament because I don't categorically support it. I also did not note the resources for my data, so I cannot provide it.
My apologies. I hope you can reopen this debate and catch the attention of someone who is better prepared.
Good luck and maybe I'll engage in another debate with you in the future, if you don't block me first! ;)