Debate: Should The Government Ban The Sale Of Guns To Civilians In America?
Side: Of course not!

Ok. You don't read wellI read just fine. You just explain yourself poorly and don't support your points well. I also think it's pretty rich you're assuming me of not reading well when you have severely fucked up your reading and understanding of 2 of the statistics in this debate so far. I think the world is very safe. And that's why 10,000 dead people is needless.But 162,000 dead is required? And you hardly seem to think the world is a safe place; you seem to think anyone with a weapon is likely to go out and murder everyone. And there is no 162,000. That's 0.5% of the total population. Which is not the case. It's 0.5% of gun owners.The statistic goes as follows: "A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]"So it's not actually .5% of gun owners have used their gun for defense, it's .5% of households have had a member who used a gun to save a life, which when applied to the population comes out to 162,000. I would also like to point out that that is 162,000 incidents per year that a gun saves a life; there are 1,029,615 incidents per year (according to the same study) that a gun is used in defense of people or property, but it's hard to tell if someone would have certainly been killed in those incidents. You can't say crime is prevalent in NYC if crime rates are low. That means crime is not prevalent. What is so hard to understand? Because I have statistics that tell me that NYC is the 7th most criminally victimized city in the world, and against that I have your opinion based on spending half the year there. And your point about Britian and crime would be valid if the ENTIRE UK had more than 640 murders. By gun fist knife hammer or otherwise. Sounds pretty safe to me.By the same study, it's not; it's the most criminally victimized city in the world. I wasn't just talking about murders I was talking about crime. Anyone with an above gr 8 comprehension would realize that was not my solution. Your need to harp on this proves how little you have left to stand on.Hahahaha well not all of us are privy to what you were trying to say; all we can examine is what you actually did say. Again this seems to be a case of you expressing yourself poorly and getting upset when people don't understand. I'm all ears; if that's not what you meant to say you can amend your statement and we can discuss that. And I'm hardly "harping on this;" it account for a very small portion of our debate. But I think its relevant to see how you handle defeat on the small issues, like this one, because that tells me how you debate in general. If I win a small point like this and you get butthurt and refuse to explain or support your position, much less admit you were wrong, what does that say about your style of debating as a whole? Nothing good, that's for sure, and it indicates you wont concede points on the basis that they are your points, not that they are actually correct. You can grow Marijuana. You let me know when you have a gun plant.What a spectacular dodge. Way to completely miss the point in me bringing up weed, man. But there has never been any prof that MORE people drank because of it. You can't just keep making stuff up. I'll catch you.And you can't keep repetitiously building up your own straw men, passing them off as mine, and then attacking them and thinking you've made a point; I'll catch you. I never said there was "prof" more people drank (it would have been impossible to calculate, anyways) during prohibition. Banning guns means less guns. Keeping them therefore would be more.I have one gun. If a ban on guns goes through and I comply, I will have no guns. (Less guns)If things stay the way they are, I will have one gun. (The same)If I go buy more gun(s), I will have more than one gun. (More guns)Why is this so hard for you to understand? You're right. The 67% is murders. Doesn't that still make the point guns don't make us safer. Even 8% of crime in general is a shit ton. That's still over 400,000 (8% of 5.1 million) crimes committed with a gun.I stand corrected you do know how to concede a point... kinda. Lol. Well a woefully small percentage of crime is committed with a gun, and even the total amount of that small percentage doesn't compare the the number of times guns are used in self defense, so I think the point can be made that guns make us safer.