You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
A passionate argument against gun control.
The purpose of the right to bear arms is to democratize power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Freedom consists of the distribution of power and despotism consists of the concentration of power. Power concentrated in the hands of the few will create a world which we will not want. If guns are broadly distributed so that everybody would have their own gun — then if somebody did try to do something really terrible, then the collective will of others could overcome that bad actor.
The same can be said for companies that want to control our food supply (Monsanto) or given exclusive rights to genetic engineering, etc.
This is just a theory. There's no actual evidence that more good guys with guns = more peace. What if more people with guns does what it would seem to logically do and just creates more gun violence? What if 10 guys in the pulse club had guns? The shooter kills maybe 20 people then 10 guys all start shooting at him. 20 more people are killed in the crossfire. Police arrive and only,know there's 10 people with guns shooting. Who is the shooter? How do they know? So police are now slow and cautious to enter the scene because they have no idea what the threat is. They end up shooting 2 of the 10 guys with guns and 10 people bleed out because the cops took too long.
Obviously this is a hypothetical too but it's clear to see how good guys with guns so NOT necessarily defuse the situation calmly and quickly. Having more shooters can create more problems.
So instead of just trusting that a good guy with a gun will be an ace with a pistol and put one quick bullet between the eyes of a crazed gunman and carry 2 babies and a puppy out of the building at explodes like Rambo behind him. Why don't we do what we know will cause less gun deaths and try to cut down on guns as much as possible? That seems like the more logical direction to go in.
One could argue that the idea of gun control is also a theory.
But my argument is more from a statistical point of view.
There are 319 million people in the U.S.
The total number of people killed by terrorists on U.S. soil is no where near this number. In other words, the number of people whose life are impacted by terrorists is small compared to the number of people who would be negatively impacted by a despot government. The reason a despot would find it difficult to take control of the U.S. is because of our checks and balances of power. Weakening the pillars we have set up to protect us from a despot government is not an experiment I would like to risk.
I agree with your position. I would further like to add it has been said that in America there is a gun for every man woman and child so I take it there have been guns in America for a while now. If that being so and we talk about people need to be armed and we will have all is this peace then my question is where was all of this peace when we had Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Aurora Theater killer, Dylan roof etc.?
Hey there Progressive did you notice a Muslim shot up a gay bar in Orlando ? It was a gun free zone was it not ? So how did it happen that a Muslim entered the gay bar with a weapon ?
If there is a solution it involves abandoning the idea that we can kill our way to a better society. Shooting down a drone would just mean more sales for the manufacturer
"Sorry but guns are no longer the great equalizer they once were. If you aren't equipped to hack drones you may as well give them up."
Well said by a Progressive that believes one should give up their guns and their right to own them. So Progressive do you believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed ?
No. However, the second amendment is interpreted as such: We have the right to "keep and bear arms" so long as they are vastly inferior to those welded by government agents. This is how it is now. I think if the government restricts the weapons a citizen may keep, then government agents should operate under the same restrictions. My position may be better classified as radical than simply progressive.
You would have to define vastly inferior. Isis doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. They don't have tanks. They don't have helicopters. They don't have fighters nor bombers. They do not have a naval fleet. Yet, the government with its "superior" weapons cannot take them out.
Vastly superior in that should we decide, we can target anywhere in the region without rboots on the ground. Also, I don't think the issue is that we CAN'T "take them out", It's that we can't (yet) justify the carnage.
Obviously not. But they could just put the drone program in to high gear.
Modern surveillance technology now allows tracking of anyone with serious anti-US sentiments. Especially if they are talking with and teaming up with others. An aggressive focus on preemptive strikes and detention based on suspicion alone would be quite unpopular, but effective to make opposition to "US interests" seem hopeless. I'm not advocating that, but I do wonder how much "US interest" there is in keeping the lucrative war on terror going..
What I find peculiar is that violence and terrorism spring from violent and terrible ideology, yet we can't directly address that because naive secularism pretends that goverment entities can somehow be fundamentally neutral concerning religion.
Yes, I'm fine with that. Considering the numbers, there's no reason to believe there would be any sort of uptick in murder. This is because there are only about 1,700 non-drug related gun murders every year in a country of 312 million.
We should ban pesticides just like we banned lead in paint. It just goes to show the ignorance. Well fight for the right to convenient killing weapons but go ahead and spray tonnes of pesticides and herbicides all over the place.
OK, look, it is the people who are putting the chemicals/chemical compounds into the atmosphere. Eventually the people who are doing this are going to die and then the rest of us can continue with our lives. The ecosystem is self regulating.
Oh, sure, it will kill those who are not releasing it either. But look at the bright side..., that means less people out on the road during rush hour traffic. That has got to count for something.
It's actually a link from my profile page. I was hoping that either andy has introduced a feature we can use to create a list of users that we don't want to be able to participate in ANY debates we create. Perhaps its being worked on? I know how to ban users from particular debates but I don't know how to add them to my blocklist.. guess I should ask Andy
Yeah, I rarely block anyone. I mean, blocking is a form of complaining about a troll and a troll complaining about another troll is just hyprocrytical ;)
There are 2 definitions for "bad for the environment." One definition, the one you are using, is from a human perspective. The other definition, the one I am using, is from the planet's perspective. If humans would go away, then the planet could create what it wants. Currently humans modify the environment to what we want.
"I don't think someone on the FBI's terror watch list should be able to legally purchase firearms." The Ignorant Progressive speaks ! How many laws do criminals obey you IGNORANT PROGRESSIVE ?
You ever heard of a "Ghost Gun" Progressive ? How will your government stop the manufacture of these weapons ? More Laws ? The ignorance of Progressives and Guns shows you know nothing !
You know, that is an awful argument for gun control, right? "You don't need protection from the government because they have the capability to wipe you off the planet".
if there were insurgents in an american city, the risk for collateral damage to infrastructure would be considerable. so, having a desire to limit the damage done, Planes and tanks would not likely be deployed in the numbers you expect. instead I imagine it would come to something of an infantry war. where the military acts less like an army and more like judge Dredd Esque denial of due process. but without guns, we would be powerless to fight against a despotic regime implementing such a program. at that point, an AR-15 with Green tips would be a welcome sight for anyone who would prefer freedom over state sanctioned high security, Or perhaps one would call that Martial law.
-
Chances are that the military would never get to that point. they too are citizens, and would resist the despot as much as was in their power. but I'd think I'd rather have a safeguard to civil war, and risk the chance of scattered tragic incidents, then have a repeat of the bloodiest war in american history.
Exactly. this is why we need guns so that if the military does not defect and say "We will not fight" in a looming civil war, that we have something more than protest. this is especially true in a world where the so called "insurgents" want something that is their right to have. Like the guns that they would use to rebel against their government.
Do you mean something like when the U.S. troops go house to house looking for terrorists but much more heavy handed? If Iraq is any indication, that will not work.
think of it more like SWAT where their goal is death not capture. it doesn't work, because they make martyrs. but that's the future of a world where the average citizen is not armed. first, they feed you the lie to tell you "SWAT+ is meant to protect you against those nasty people who still own guns" then it supplants the police force. and then you lose all your rights. the whole bill of rights ceases to exist without the second amendment. Civil wars are the worse option when you weigh them against shootings. mostly because everyone loses. guns that are "Objects of war" are like Nukes. if you hold nukes the mere threat of using them is enough to stop most conflicts. and this doesn't even mean in a Terroristic threatening kind of way. if guns are removed, the government can give no shits about what is fair or just, and they can initiate martial law, take away your personal property, and what are you going to do about it? the reason that the second amendment exists has nothing to do with the equalization of power, and all the more to do in the preservation of the rights that the constitution suggests. Owning a gun does not make me more powerful than the government. but it sure as hell makes me a spike strip if they try to take away my rights. and seeing as though the founding fathers indicated that Naval Cannons were allowed to be used, that they were included in the right to bear and keep arms, it seems ridiculous that the government of today can tell me that I can't own a shotgun shorter than Xfeet Xinches or that contains Xbullets. Cannons were items of war, So what? they were allowed. now, people don't "Need" theses items because we have a military to fight against pirates on the sea, and we have police to fight gangbangers. there is no wild west anymore. but is that still a reason to take away the freedoms of a person? because they have a potential to do harm?
Problem is you IGNORANT PROGRESSIVES are scared of a "Black Gun" ! Don't you think a .22 can kill just as many people ? Should you IGNORANT PROGRESSIVES be scared of a .22 ?
How about "the collective will of the American military. Our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters?? THEY are armed. Do you think OUR military " would back a "rogue government"?? Do you think OUR Police brothers, sisters, dads would back a move like that?? Ever hear the word "mutiny"?? I have NO fear that THEY would follow a Commander-in-chief that tried any such thing! (And THEY have the guns to stop it!
Amazing how little faith SOME "Americans" have in America!
Your faith in America is not what Americans have always leaned on. Germany was not a democracy. North Korea is not a democracy. There is no one threatening the lives of Americans if they don't "toe the line". There never will be as long as we are a democracy ...unless we allow another oligarchy and sell the country to a few with money and power. That is the only way we will have a "rogue government", and that will bring on a revolution led by those soldiers with guns. No need of the population, our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers in the military will take it back! I worked for one of "Hitler's Youth". He was one of the best bosses I've had. He learned. I have no faith in a "god", I DO in America!
