not just a bad person problem - a gun problem - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.

The best online Debate website -! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

not just a bad person problem - a gun problem
in Politics

By linatelinate 40 Pts

this is the strongest piece of info in my argument... ive never seen a good refutation: 
-You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that's not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture.

here is some more gun control science that points to guns causing society problems: 

-where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger.
-where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what's more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here.
-women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends
-you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you
-States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings
-only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher. 
-we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
-Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.
-Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher.
-High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries.
-it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math.
-this really isn't just a mental health problem. we don't have more people with mental health problems than other countries.... just more people with guns.  the study controls for mental health factors v other factors.
-we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren't more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it's not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem.
​-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. ///  you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there's a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what's the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars.  
-people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn't have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical.... downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those 'defensive' uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use... but it would come at the cost of more murder, too.

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +


  • its the guns stupid
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • There are more gun homicides because it is way easier to put a round of any size in someone’s head as opposed to knifing hem. This doesn’t mean its a gun issue. This means that bad humans have found an easier way to obtain their goals
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2065 Pts
    How do you reconcile your claim that it is the guns that are the problem with the fact that in, virtually, every non-gun crime category the US is also way ahead of most other developed nations? Guns are hardly involved in, say, tax evasion, yet that crime is also much more common in the US.

    To me as a statistician, this means that, likely, the US culture makes people more prone to breaking the law. You see this in all areas of our life, from people speeding on highways all the time, to people building multi-billion financial pyramids.

    That is one of the consequences of being an individualistic society. Nobody said that it would be all roses, and for everything you gain you typically have to pay some price. We, freedom lovers, simply find the price we are paying as reasonable, given what we gain in return.
    In Japan, there is virtually no crime (with the exception of several major cities), yet I would not be thrilled to live there permanently. Here, I feel very comfortable, even if I have to deal with someone every now and then running a red light.

    If you want to reduce the gun deaths alone, then the best way to do it would be to institute a harsh totalitarian society and to jail everyone who likes the idea of lax gun control laws. If, on the other hand, you want to change the society for the better and tackle the general issue of crime, then you have to employ a more subtle approach. Of course, subtle approaches are not popular in politics, where the biggest gain is received by promising people that every single problem will be solved immediately, if only you vote for the particular politician. But politics is not everything, and there are ways to achieve your goals that do not involve voting for anyone.
  • if you impose stricter gun laws violence of all sorts will reduce
    The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1206 Pts
    MayCaesar said:

    If you want to reduce the gun deaths alone, then the best way to do it would be to institute a harsh totalitarian society and to jail everyone who likes the idea of lax gun control laws.

    I doubt that would work.  Criminals, particularly organized crime and gangs, would welcome harsh gun laws, as that would make their "job" easier and safer.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2065 Pts

    It worked in Soviet Union, where almost all the gangs were eliminated by the totalitarian police, or recruited into KGB. If you have a full control over dozens millions people and can make them do whatever you want, eradicating some petty organised crime groups becomes pretty easy - especially when you yourself are the supreme crime group.

    It worked... If you do not consider all the gun executions... And labor camps.. And some other things... But, after all, those things were legal, so they do not exactly constitute "gun crimes", right?

    For that matter, why do we not just make it legal to murder people with guns? The gun crime problem will immediately be solved, as there will be none. At least, this reasoning seems to align with the OP's narrative.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2065 Pts

    Both the practical evidence, and the theoretical science, show the opposite. When you do not know whether your potential victim has a gun on them, you are more likely to stay your hand, than when you are fairly sure they do not.

    In addition, Switzerland and Israel have comparable gun laws to the US, but far lower violence rates, both in and outside the gun department (if you do not count the terrorist attacks Israel has to deal with every day). On the other hand, Russia and Honduras have far stricter gun laws, but much higher crime rates all around.

    So, is your assertion backed up by any reasoning, or is it just wishful thinking?
  • linatelinate 40 Pts

    why isn't the non gun homicide in the usa wildly out of proportion? while the gun homicide rate is. if this is a bad person problem only, non gun homicides should be wildly out of proportion too. 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1206 Pts
    linate said:

    why isn't the non gun homicide in the usa wildly out of proportion? while the gun homicide rate is. if this is a bad person problem only, non gun homicides should be wildly out of proportion too. 

    What do you consider "wildly out of proportion"?  Four times as many people were killed with knives and cutting instruments in 2017 than were killed with rifles (which includes assault rifles).  Almost twice as many were punched and kicked to death. 

  • I don't have time currently to look at the stats so maybe someone can help out.  Do these stats when referring to number of homicides mean the number of dead people or individual murder instances?  Because that makes a difference.

    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2065 Pts

    I do not know the scientific definition of "wildly out of proportion", but other homicide rates are also much higher than, say, in most European countries. Maybe not as much higher as the gun homicide rates, but nor should they be: it is much easier to kill a person with a gun than with a fist, for example, so it only makes sense that the vast majority of homicides will be performed with guns and not with fists.
  • linatelinate 40 Pts
    ya'll need to look at this graph. the gun homicides are wildly out of proportion, but the non gun homicides are not. non gun murders are within range, but gun murders are many many times out of whack. there's no way this is just a bad person problem, and not a gun problem too.

    how do you explain that there are so many metrics that coincide with gun presence? police shootings, female partner shootings, overall murder etc etc. the long list in the opening post. 

  • So if guns are SO bad, how should people protect themselves in the event that someone enters their home with the intent to cause harm?
    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

    "Americanism not Globalism, will be our credo." ~Donald Trump

    "A communist is like a crocodile" ~Winston Churchill
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2065 Pts

    The cultural differences in more violent cultures will lead to more people employing guns in their criminal activities, skewing the statistics respectively. This should be pretty obvious.

    There are countries in your list with gun laws comparable to those of the US (Switzerland, for example) with much lower fraction of gun murders, and there are countries with much stricter gun laws (Mexico) with comparable fraction. Simultaneously, the crime rates in Switzerland are much lower all around, and in Mexico much higher all around.

    Everything matches my hypothesis, and contradicts yours.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 227 Pts

    The basic principle in gun murders is death by bullet this is by far the easiest to prove in a Court. Something much more complicated like murders using chemicals as a weapon is much harder to prove in a Court of law for several reasons.

    What else is not be described in a state of the union is that there is a trade to be made in choice of how to die. The vote is given to the public on reducing a likely event of shooting only. This is a excuse to not share the burden of lethal force equally within the union of whole truth and truth. At one time people fled the united States to escape draft which in turn was an illegal means to share the burden of lethal force equally as a nation.

    The United States Civil court are in process of legal reparation and compensation for use of lethal force. The United States Constitution and common defense to the general welfare sets a basic principle of own ship of a fire-arm, a gun, as necessary to secure liberty, it would describe a need to share by the ownership of gun the burden of negligence of lethal force. Constitutionally a police officer officers gun is  owned by the people that public must also own their own gun to share the burden of lethal force equally.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 227 Pts

    There is a state of the Union which has never been presented to the House of representatives in a proper fashion.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch