Are Guns Needed in Self-Defense? [Copperknickers vs |Sith|3|DarthWarman88]

[Copperknickers II]

Ladies, gentlemen, and of course DWMan - I plan to oppose the motion that 'Guns are needed/are the most efficent method to defend yourself in your home and in public.

My opponent's position: "I am for the right to have guns to defend yourself and the right to carry them in public legally to protect myself and anyone with me."


I cede the floor to my opponent for the propository reasoning, that i may rejoinder him. The floor is yours if you will have it, DWMan...

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I'll start this off short and sweet so my opponent can see what I'm all about .


In my opinion, guns are needed to protect your home. Some may argue they made make the situation worse, or if you are awaked suddenly, you may shoot though the wall and kill someone next door in an attempt to defend yourself. Some others may ask the purpose of using certain guns, like Assault Rifles, an military gun, to defend your house against an petty robber. A lot of thieves will leave the house if you announce to them you have an firearm.

While these may be valid points, I tend to disagree. While I am not an supporter of assault rifles myself, I tend to believe you have the choice to defend your house with whatever means necessary. If an robber has to pick, would he rob an house with an gun owner, especially an experienced one, or one without an gun owner? Even an gang of thieves with numbers advantage can do the logic. An few shotgun blasts to the leader and his cronies is enoguh to put them out of commision for good. If you have an family, would you risk not having an firearm and risk having an violent confrontation with them if you don't have an firearm to protect yourself?

Out in the streets, an gun is likely the only way to save your life. If you are jump by an gang of gangbangers, and they are armed with guns, sadly, I think can both agreed, guns or no guns, you will be in trouble. However, if they are not, or if they are armed with knives, you must have an gun. An knife can cause serious injury to you. Sometimes, you may not have time to fire an warning shot. What if they running at you? You might have time to shoot 1 or 2 times, and this is not the time to play around with warnings.


Next post I will provide statics to back up my statements. I like to see what you have to see first, good fellow!

[Copperknickers II]

In my opinion, guns are needed to protect your home.

Some may argue they made make the situation worse, or if you are awaked suddenly, you may shoot though the wall and kill someone next door in an attempt to defend yourself.

Indeed, i may be wrong on this but do you require any firearms training to possess a gun in the USA? afaik as long as you have a clear background (as far as mental health and criminality) and are of the right age, any Tommy, Ricky and Harry can have a gun. Mental health history is very shaky ground, people can be fine for years and suddenly snap, etc.

Some others may ask the purpose of using certain guns, like Assault Rifles, an military gun, to defend your house against an petty robber. A lot of thieves will leave the house if you announce to them you have an firearm.

And what about the theives that have firearms themselves? You announce to them you have a firearm and you'd be dead before you hit the ground. A pistol is bad enough without a M16 or Ak don''t you think? These guns are designed for killing, you intention even if you agree that guns are needed for self-defense, is not to kill but to prevent.

As i always say, the best martial art would be a combination of middle distance running and parkour. You don't get into a fight, you don't lose it. You don't have a gun, noone gets shot, do they? And if you make sure that no gun enters your shores and anyone who tries is deported, that imo makes you a lot safer than if you had your American Courage .44 Magnum in your pocket.

An few shotgun blasts to the leader and his cronies is enoguh to put them out of commision for good. If you have an family, would you risk not having an firearm and risk having an violent confrontation with them if you don't have an firearm to protect yourself?

I'd rather spend the money of an assualt rifle or shotgun on preventative measures than a gun, which is an unreliable ally if you aren't an experienced expert and is a downright liablity in the dark of night when you are shivering and scared.

Out in the streets, an gun is likely the only way to save your life. If you are jump by an gang of gangbangers, and they are armed with guns, sadly, I think can both agreed, guns or no guns, you will be in trouble. However, if they are not, or if they are armed with knives, you must have an gun. An knife can cause serious injury to you. Sometimes, you may not have time to fire an warning shot. What if they running at you? You might have time to shoot 1 or 2 times, and this is not the time to play around with warnings.

I refer you to my previous point about the best way to win a fight - being a hero and fighting back is the surest way to get killed even if you did have a gun. Drop everything and run away is the best option, not fire a gun. What if you miss? Your standing there with 4 guys running at you? Run.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

And what about the theives that have firearms themselves? You announce to them you have a firearm and you'd be dead before you hit the ground. A pistol is bad enough without a M16 or Ak don''t you think? These guns are designed for killing, you intention even if you agree that guns are needed for self-defense, is not to kill but to prevent.

As i always say, the best martial art would be a combination of middle distance running and parkour. You don't get into a fight, you don't lose it. You don't have a gun, noone gets shot, do they? And if you make sure that no gun enters your shores and anyone who tries is deported, that imo makes you a lot safer than if you had your American Courage .44 Magnum in your pocket.

What I meant was, in today's world, god forbid if you shoot and kill someone in self-defense in your house without announced you have an firearm, you get arrested yourself, which is ridiculous. Common sense my friend. That is, if you see the man with an gun, why would you announce yourself in the first place? The only time he should see you is when he is about to die due to his stupidly.



Also,Yes, but how will you go around making people give up their guns, especially if it is not registered or if they hide it?

I refer you to my previous point about the best way to win a fight - being a hero and fighting back is the surest way to get killed even if you did have a gun. Drop everything and run away is the best option, not fire a gun. What if you miss? Your standing there with 4 guys running at you? Run.

And what if they chase you,hm? Just stand there, be an victim, and beg for mercy as they kick the living out of you? I rather defend myself then run and have them chase after me anyhow.



The other day, me and my brother went into an some-what shaky distract of Pittsburgh PA to see this fancy church they have there. that people like to visit. As we was going back to our car, an African-American Gangster just pull up in front of us, rap music barring, and looked at us before driving off. What if he got out of the car and tried to mug us? We had enough time to pull an gun, since he was stupid enough to drive to slow and not pay attention to our movements. But your logic is to stand there, get beaten, and be an victim, god forbid if you kill someone and be an "hero".

[Copperknickers II]

What I meant was, in today's world, god forbid if you shoot and kill someone in self-defense in your house without announced you have an firearm, you get arrested yourself, which is ridiculous.

Ridiculous. I see. If you shoot and kill someone in self-defense, then you are a murderer. Thou Shalt Not Kill as Christians and Jews would put it. So the law in the USA is that you have to warn someone you are going to kill them before you do it?

Common sense my friend.

My common sense tells me that there are plenty of non-lethal ways of defending oneself from an attacker, even at range.

That is something i would like an answer to: guns, that is machines operated by a percussion explosive cap intended to maim and kill living animals, are not appropriate in any civil setting. Indeed they are not appropriate in anything other than an Orwellian dystopia, but we can at least stem the flow of blood in civilian settings. Would you therefore agree that any way in which lethal force can be averted in a life-threatening situation should and must be implemented, as a matter of domestic security?

The fact is people will always find ways to procure firearms, and usually if firearms are illegal those people will be dangerous criminals, but if you make firearms legal you increase 50 fold the danger of lethal force compared with the blunt instrument or flicknife of the common UK burglar.

Evidence: Homicide rate in

USA - 5.8 per 100,000 people per year

Scotland (highest knife crime rates in developed world but guns are uncommon) - 2.13 ""

Northern Ireland (where guns are readily available to criminals due to paramilitaries, but illegal) - 2.15""

Explain please, why the USA has such high rates of homicide when it has no worse rates of social inequality, poverty and gangs than say, Scotland.

Also,Yes, but how will you go around making people give up their guns, especially if it is not registered or if they hide it?

That is irrelevent, we are not debating the implementation of a ban of firearms, we are debating the right and legislation allowing the vast majority of US citizens to keep and carry a firearm.

And what if they chase you,hm? Just stand there, be an victim, and beg for mercy as they kick the living out of you? I rather defend myself then run and have them chase after me anyhow.

Have you ever faced down a large group of agressors in a dark street? I have, luckily one of them knew me so stopped the rest of them, but i can tell you that if had had a firearm, it would not even have crossed my mind to use it. You want to get yourself out of danger in a situation like that, then you run like a redneck from a grizzly with a hunting rifle.

If you defend yourself, then you can take one or two of them down before they are performing said act of kicking the living out of you (or more likely shoot you down since they probably also have firearms) If you run, you can escape that fate.

The other day, me and my brother went into an some-what shaky distract of Pittsburgh PA to see this fancy church they have there. that people like to visit. As we was going back to our car, an African-American Gangster just pull up in front of us, rap music barring, and looked at us before driving off. What if he got out of the car and tried to mug us? We had enough time to pull an gun, since he was stupid enough to drive to slow and not pay attention to our movements. But your logic is to stand there, get beaten, and be an victim, god forbid if you kill someone and be an "hero".

Guns are the coward's way out. In fact they are worse, running is the coward's way out, guns are the way out of the online game cheat.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

If you defend yourself, then you can take one or two of them down before they are performing said act of kicking the living out of you (or more likely shoot you down since they probably also have firearms) If you run, you can escape that fate.

Have you ever "look down" the barrel of an gun or came close to it? I haven't, but I almost been gang-beaten before also. Again, I think you missing my point. You have to realize us two humans aren't the fastest runners in the world. Trust me, they will catch up to you, and if they do and you don't have an gun, then what?


Funny you should bring up nations. And for my main artillery, My favorite nation in the world besides my native homeland of America, Switzerland! The Swiss have an large amount of guns, yet their crime rate is lower then the US. In fact,

Suicides have little to do with gun availability. Japan has no guns, while Switzerland is deluged with every gun in the book, and both nations have the same suicide rate.

http://pages.prodigy.net/vanhooser/t...their_guns.htm

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.
In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
The world was horrified on April 20 when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado. The Congress is now stampeding to pass additional restrictions on the acquisition of firearms.. Yet in 1996, a pederast who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage in which he murdered 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. The Parliament responded with an outright ban on all handguns and most rifles.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/artic...ime-swiss.html




Why, my dear friend, if your idea is so great, then why in the nation of the Swiss did they have only 1 case of mass murder (Public place in 2001,16 people died I believe) yet they didn't have anymore. Why didn't they have any armed robbery attempts in 1993? I think it's funny to how most Swiss citizens don't commit the crimes.... It's the foreigners.


There are cases of Swiss militiamen carrying their assault rifles in stores. Yet I see them not killing anyone? Guns in the hands of responsible people won't go to bad things. When you have gang-bangers causing the crime, then you see the bad side of guns.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Awaiting your reply.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Should I declare victory or an draw?

[Copperknickers II]

Regrouping is all. Actually i was conjugating subjunctives, i have a Latin exam coming up . Back to the debate for now though.

Also this is a Fight Club Debate guys, Sith and I only can post here. You don't get into the ring in a boxing match do you?

Have you ever "looked down" the barrel of an gun or came close to it? I haven't, but I almost been gang-beaten before also. Again, I think you're missing my point. You have to realize us two humans aren't the fastest runners in the world. Trust me, they will catch up to you, and if they do and you don't have an gun, then what?

Then what? What if i had a gatling gun embedded into my right arm? What if Obama made hundreds of genetically engineered Chuck Norrises to patrol the streets and behead anyone playing hip hop too loudly? What then? What if? What would happen if ...? etc.

Your argument is that if you are armed with a gun, you are safe from someone who is threatening you. Can i really argue with that? Who is going to stand up to a guy pointing a 44. Magnum at them? The kind of guy, imho, who does not want to harm you in the first place. 9 times out of 10, if you are confronted by one or more people who intend(s) to injure you, you will be injured.

Crime is illegal (we can both agree on that at least ). Therefore it is a particularly brainless criminal who walks across the street towards you brandishing a flick knife, at any time of day. I know that you are not short of brainless criminals in the USA, but they are not relevent here. My point is that true 'attackers', cold blooded premeditators, act on the sly, with ambushes, at night, making sure they both outnumber and outgun the opponent. Self-defense is defense against physical harm, and the majority of the time, that harm will be unexpected.

Think about it - how many murders are the result of messed-up burglaries and gang-bangs, compared with other types of violent murder such as domestic, random, serial, revenge, hits? A minimal amount. Moreover, a gun is useful only in the cases of a known assailant, whom you assess as harmful before they assess you. If a street gang approaches you, and that gang is not equipped with firearms, there are a large number of options to dealing with that. A firearm is a possible solution, but not a practical one, on balance.

Therefore, the gun is not NEEDED, it is in essence a luxury. The same with a burglar, preventative beats combative every time.

Funny you should bring up nations. And for my main artillery, My favorite nation in the world besides my native homeland of America, Switzerland! The Swiss have an large amount of guns, yet their crime rate is lower then the US.

I can't debate that, it is lower than the UK also, but then Switzerland is a very small country with a very high quality of life. The post-industrial working class social divide of the UK, US, Brazil, and to a lesser extent France, Germany, Italy, and China, does not exist. The causes of crime in general, notwithstanding the weapons used, are not equatable, therefore the comparison is rather invalid.

Why, my dear friend, if your idea is so great, then why in the nation of the Swiss did they have only 1 case of mass murder (Public place in 2001,16 people died I believe) yet they didn't have anymore. Why didn't they have any armed robbery attempts in 1993? I think it's funny to how most Swiss citizens don't commit the crimes.... It's the foreigners.

Figures, once again! That is a ludicrous point. Switzerland has 8,000,000 inhabitants, the UK has 60,000,000, the US has 200,000,000. Even without the social differences, Switzerland would have 8 times fewer mass murders than the UK. How many mass murders in Britain have we had since 2000, you may ask? Perhaps 10, exactly the same as Switzerland per capita.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Assume victory, until your opponent returns, assume you have the field but your opponent made a tactical retreat.

Coppers, you are back. Very true. I know Coppers would not submit to the mighty King of Swissland and the Imperial Army under his command. Lets continue to fight,shall we?

Crime is illegal (we can both agree on that at least ). Therefore it is a particularly brainless criminal who walks across the street towards you brandishing a flick knife, at any time of day. I know that you are not short of brainless criminals in the USA, but they are not relevent here. My point is that true 'attackers', cold blooded premeditators, act on the sly, with ambushes, at night, making sure they both outnumber and outgun the opponent. Self-defense is defense against physical harm, and the majority of the time, that harm will be unexpected.

Think about it - how many murders are the result of messed-up burglaries and gang-bangs, compared with other types of violent murder such as domestic, random, serial, revenge, hits? A minimal amount. Moreover, a gun is useful only in the cases of a known assailant, whom you assess as harmful before they assess you. If a street gang approaches you, and that gang is not equipped with firearms, there are a large number of options to dealing with that. A firearm is a possible solution, but not a practical one, on balance.

Good points. However, how would you deal with an approaching gang who are not armed with firearms? Would running really be an suitable solution? And yes, some criminals will try to ambush you. But you can always try to fight back at the correct time. You can always capitalize on the criminal's stupid mistakes. In one case, an store robber stuck his gun down on the counter... And the clerk grab it. There was an fight for it, and guess who got the gun? Lets just say the robber went running FAST.

Therefore, the gun is not NEEDED, it is in essence a luxury. The same with a burglar, preventative beats combative every time.

Again, yes. But how many people can afford, say, an alarm system for their homes? What if they have an handgun that was pass down to them? In my family for instance, we are to broke to afford an alarm system for our house (there been burglaries lately in my town of 8,000+ citizens). But my 90 year old grandfather has 2 handguns he would greatly give one to my family and one to my uncle. What if someone breaks in then? Espceally if he is arm with an weapon, regardless of if it is an knife or an firearm? Even with an alarm system, that doesn't deter the pro criminals. Sometimes "non-firearm" prevetative measures just doesn't work and it been proven many times.

Figures, once again! That is a ludicrous point. Switzerland has 8,000,000 inhabitants, the UK has 60,000,000, the US has 200,000,000. Even without the social differences, Switzerland would have 8 times fewer mass murders than the UK. How many mass murders in Britain have we had since 2000, you may ask? Perhaps 10, exactly the same as Switzerland per capita.

Yes, but the same can be said about comparing Scotland to the US. How many people Scotland have? About over 5 mil? Come on now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/se...crime.scotland


2nd highest murder rate in Europe eh?

[Каие]

Posts moved. Don't post in other people's debate threads.

[Copperknickers II]

Coppers, you are back. Very true. I know Coppers would not submit to the mighty King of Swissland and the Imperial Army under his command. Lets continue to fight,shall we?

I survived swineflu, so 'en garde', or as they say in the USA: "put 'em up 'fore i shoot yo ***, boy"

Good points. However, how would you deal with an approaching gang who are not armed with firearms? Would running really be an suitable solution?

It is the natural reaction - fight or flight, fight when you can win, run like :wub when you can't. Flight is better, because it reduces your chance of being harmed at all.

And yes, some criminals will try to ambush you. But you can always try to fight back at the correct time. You can always capitalize on the criminal's stupid mistakes. In one case, an store robber stuck his gun down on the counter... And the clerk grab it. There was an fight for it, and guess who got the gun? Lets just say the robber went running FAST.

Fair enough, but the gun was not needed. The armed robber was disarmed, he ran away.

Again, yes. But how many people can afford, say, an alarm system for their homes? What if they have an handgun that was pass down to them? In my family for instance, we are to broke to afford an alarm system for our house (there been burglaries lately in my town of 8,000+ citizens). But my 90 year old grandfather has 2 handguns he would greatly give one to my family and one to my uncle.

You have to buy ammunition, surely? Alarm systems are not very expensive, and appropriate defensive measures such as locking doors and windows etc are free.

What if someone breaks in then? Espceally if he is arm with an weapon, regardless of if it is an knife or an firearm? Even with an alarm system, that doesn't deter the pro criminals. Sometimes "non-firearm" preventative measures just doesn't work and it been proven many times.

When and how?

Yes, but the same can be said about comparing Scotland to the US. How many people Scotland have? About over 5 mil? Come on now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/se...crime.scotland


2nd highest murder rate in Europe eh?

Indeed, mostly knives and blunt instruments. Guns would really not solve that as much as preventative action.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

I survived swineflu, so 'en garde', or as they say in the USA: "put 'em up 'fore i shoot yo ***, boy"

And I might potentially have sepsis, which is an bacterial blood infection that has an 40% death rate. Take that!

It is the natural reaction - fight or flight, fight when you can win, run like :wub when you can't. Flight is better, because it reduces your chance of being harmed at all.

True, but unless they fat, unfit slobs, I highly doubt they will be outrun by you.

Fair enough, but the gun was not needed. The armed robber was disarmed, he ran away.

Then if he doesn't pose an threat, no need to shoot him unless.....

You have to buy ammunition, surely? Alarm systems are not very expensive, and appropriate defensive measures such as locking doors and windows etc are free.

Until the guy breaks down an door or an window, then what? And if the guy is an expert thief....

When and how?

Many stories on the internet of my point.

Indeed, mostly knives and blunt instruments. Guns would really not solve that as much as preventative action.

Then how would you lower the crime rate in Scotland? If your proposed "preventive" measures work so well, why is your nation's crime rate so high?

[Copperknickers II]

And I might potentially have sepsis, which is an bacterial blood infection that has an 40% death rate. Take that!

True, but unless they fat, unfit slobs, I highly doubt they will be outrun by you.

Work out more. Not only does it help in self defense, it is a general lifestyle thing, stops obesity, extends your life for several years in fact.

Until the guy breaks down a door or a window, then what? And if the guy is an expert thief....

then you wouldn't hear him in the first place.

Then how would you lower the crime rate in Scotland? If your proposed "preventive" measures work so well, why is your nation's crime rate so high?

... that is something both my nation and I are still working out.

At this point, i am willing to admit defeat

Guns are indeed a lot more appropriate in self-defense than i had thought. Are they 'needed'? In some circumstances, i have to conclude that they are indeed the best form of defense within reason and practicality. Thank you for an entertaining and educating debate.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

Work out more. Not only does it help in self defense, it is a general lifestyle thing, stops obesity, extends your life for several years in fact.

Because with the economy being bad and people having to work 2, even 3 jobs (Like my own father), it's hard to make time for working out more.





And with the above final statement, I accept your offer of defeat. You were an worthy foe. This is my first win in the Garb's Fight Club. You put up many good points. I thank ye for this debate!